1. Keeler 1
Ben Keeler
Professor Rick Weissbourd
Independent Study - Final Paper
17 December 2010
Disrespect Amongst Adolescent Boys in Heterosexual Romantic Relationships: An Overview
Introduction:
There has been much research conducted on the romantic lives of adolescents in recent
years, but most of the research has centered around two main focii: 1) factors that correlate with
specific sexual or relationship behavior (such as condom use, age of first intercourse, or physical
aggression), and 2) issues related to identity formation and maintenance within romantic
relationships (Ott, 2010). This research tends to suggest that the eventual goal behind conducting it
is to help prevent adolescent risk behaviors through school and community interventions. A
severely overlooked aspect of research on adolescence is less strictly functional, and much harder to
quantify: relationship quality. How genuinely intimate are teenagers when experimenting with
romantic relationships? How much respect are they showing to one another? What factors lead to
disrespect from one partner to another? It is hard to tell, but is still essential to explore further, as
many risk behaviors can be traced to a lack of genuine respect and care between partners.
There is still a persistent notion in popular discourse, reinforced by mainstream television
and movies, that teenage boys just want sex and girls are the ones who must deflect and negotiate
this widespread urge (Parker-Pope, 2008). This seems to inherently assume that boys are the ones
acting disrespectfully toward the needs and wants of girls and that the relationships of adolescents
suffer as a result. Without much research on the topic of respect in adolescent relationships, this
notion will most likely continue to persist, despite efforts by some researchers to prove that boys'
2. Keeler 2
interest in relationships is not so one-dimensional (Smiler, 2008; Giordano, Longmore, & Manning,
2006; Grossman, 2006; Tolman et al., 2004;).
Regardless of the supposedly more three-dimensional outlook boys have in the context of
their romantic involvement with girls, it is clear that disrespect is still occurring (Kimmel, 2008;
Pascoe, 2007; Kindlon & Thompson, 1999, Chapter 10). Yet there is no clear set of causes.
However, when taken as a whole, the research tends to suggest that, among a few other causes, the
primary factor in boys' levels of disrespect in romantic encounters is the problematic process
through which they are socialized into the male gender role. The set of beliefs associated with what
it means to be a man has been given many names in the research, from general terms like
"masculinity ideology" (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993) to terms more reflective of the adolescent
experience, like the "Boy Code" (Pollack, 1998). I will use the term "masculinity ideology"
throughout this paper to refer to the set of culturally defined standards for male behavior commonly
found in modern Western society and "male gender role socialization" to refer to the process
required of boys to learn and adhere to these standards.
Masculinity Ideology's Complexity and Reach:
The main difficulty with the discussion of masculinity ideology's effects on behavior is that
there is no agreement on what this set of beliefs actually includes, and consequently, no agreement
on what messages are given to boys and men. This is one of the fundamental causes of what Pleck
describes as "gender role strain" (1995). Rather than use the empirically refuted concept of a
consistent and coherent male "gender role identity" that men must attain to avoid psychological and
relational dysfunction, contemporary research in men's studies comes from this alternative
3. Keeler 3
standpoint: that the male gender role is inconsistent across social contexts and inevitably produces
psychological dysfunction in males as they try their best to conform to it (Brooks & Silverstein,
1995). In reality, there are multiple masculinities, not just one, that "serve to uphold extant gender-
based power structures, which, for the most part, are patriarchal... and influence how teachers,
parents, and peers socialize children, and how adults think, feel, and behave" (Levant & Richmond,
2007, p. 131). Extensive empirical research has been conducted over the last 25 years that proves
quite clearly that problems in male behavior are the result of gender role stress rather than blocks to
identity formation (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995).
Researchers have reflected and debated for decades about the reasons for boys' and men's
"dark side" behavior such as rape, murder, alcoholism, domestic abuse, suicide, child abuse, and a
host of other social problems (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995). It is a sobering fact with which to
grapple, but a primary reason for much of this behavior according to many theorists is that the
socially defined male role, which prepares men for the most dangerous jobs of a society,
necessitates the denial of many authentic features of self (including the need for emotional
connection, longings for dependency, and fear of physical injury). This socially necessitated denial
of self leads to increased anxiety, and what follows is a regression toward stereotyped behavior
(Kerr & Bowen, 1988, as cited in Brooks & Silverstein, 1995). This masculinity ideology residing
within each male's belief system not only reflects his understanding of the culture's expectations for
how he should act, but also how he believes other males should act (Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2005).
The coercive force of the "manhood cult" to align with the socially sanctioned male role translates
into an over-conformity to it, and consequently, many "dark side" behaviors (Brooks & Silverstein,
1995).
4. Keeler 4
Even if there is little consistency across families and communities about what the male
gender role entails, there are some basic elements that are commonly socialized into boys from a
very early age, even across cultures and continents. This dominant form of masculinity includes the
core features of physical toughness, emotional stoicism, projected self-sufficiency, and heterosexual
dominance and control over women (Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2007). Other researchers have
included features such as a focus on financial and professional success, a tendency toward reckless
adventure, even if violence is necessary, and a rejection of personality characteristics perceived as
feminine (Levant & Richmond, 2007).
The indoctrination process for these beliefs happens across all aspects of a boy's
developmental pathway, from how his parents view and raise him differently than girls (Kindlon &
Thompson, 1999; Pollack, 1998), to the messages he receives in school about what is acceptable
behavior (Pascoe, 2007; Pollack, 1998), to what he sees on television and in movies (Ward, 1995).
Because of the pervasiveness of the message woven into the fabric of the culture, it is hard for boys
to embody identities outside of masculinity ideology's gravitational pull without risking ridicule or
social isolation by male peers or even adult members of the community (Pascoe, 2007). Chu,
Porche, and Tolman have found that the more a boy aligns with traditional masculinity ideology the
more his level of self-esteem is negatively affected. Research has also shown that levels of
masculinity ideology amongst adolescent boys are consistent across ethnicity and socio-economic
status (Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2005). It is clear that this is no small factor in boys' development,
and it must inevitably affect how they interact with girls.
There is a homo-social element to boys' behavior coming from their socialization that leads
to a competitive attention amongst one another to competence, physical strength, and independence.
5. Keeler 5
Any sign that one is not under control, knowledgeable, or able to handle the demands of a situation
can lead to ridicule from male peers. Qualities such as tenderness, sensitivity, and empathy are often
viewed as feminine, and therefore unacceptable for both oneself and one's male peers (Kimmel,
2008; Kindlon & Thompson, 1999). There is also a relentless assertion of one's heterosexuality that
tends to occur amongst boys in social contexts which leads to a focus on sexual prowess and
competence as well as frequent labeling of other male peers as "fags" (Pascoe, 2007). Pollack
(1998) also discusses the "double standard of masculinity" that comes from a wider culture
confused about what it wants boys and men to embody. As a result, boys are often stuck attempting
to reconcile being egalitarian and sensitive to girls' needs with the clashing messages telling them to
be self-sufficient and emotionally stoic. Finally, Kimmel (2008) has added another layer to the
picture in his work focused on middle class, white adolescents and emerging adults. He sees these
young men exhibiting disillusionment at how these social norms have not given them what they feel
they are entitled to, which is an easy, successful life free of complication. Therefore, they are often
willing to prolong their adolescence to put off what feels like the "trap" of adult manhood associated
with marriage, children, and a steady job. This results in a focus on male-only social bonding and
immature, shallow relationships with the opposite sex free of much emotional responsibility. All of
these behaviors and social pressures that grow out of male gender role socialization have been
consistently linked with disrespectful behavior toward girls. The level of disrespect that manifests
itself in a boy's romantic involvement with girls depends mostly on the degree to which he
internalizes these beliefs.
6. Keeler 6
Prevalence of Disrespect:
Because of the persistent cultural belief that adolescent boys primarily focus on seeking out
sex in relationships with girls, it is important to start here and illuminate how often this is actually
occurring. It is also important to note that this belief inherently assumes girls only want
commitment and intimacy, which clearly reflects the still powerful cultural standard against sexual
promiscuity in girls that feminists have tried so hard to eradicate over the last thirty years (Tolman,
2006). Is it disrespectful for a boy to focus only on sex if a girl only wants sex too? Research does
clearly show that adolescent girls generally show less permissive attitudes toward sex, a greater
focus on abstinence, and are less likely to have had sex than boys (de Gaston & Weed, 1996), but
how much could we attribute these statistics not to natural, biological forces but societal messages
condemning such behavior in girls? A study of 17-19 year old girls in New Zealand confirms that
when given a space free from public ridicule, many girls will openly resist the dominant cultural
focus for females to seek abstinence and intimacy (Allen, 2003). Another study has shown that 66%
of adolescents of both genders in the United States have had sexual experiences both within
romantic relationships and without (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2005). It is clear that the
dominant cultural message that "boys want sex, girls want commitment" is not so monolithic as
many would like to believe. But then again, Kimmel (2008) suggests that girls act out promiscuous
sexual behaviors because it is their only choice if they want any semblance of emotional closeness
in a shallow, commitment-phobic relationship dyad completely controlled by boys. The politics and
societal pressures surrounding this issue are clearly complex and multi-faceted, but it is beyond the
scope of this essay to discuss the problems inherent in girls' sexual development within a culture
that often damns their natural sexual desire. However, what can be said here is that it cannot be
7. Keeler 7
assumed that non-relationship sex between boys and girls is automatically disrespectful. It only
becomes this way if a boy does not, cannot, or refuses to understand the complicated perspective
girls are forced to have about their bodies and their desire in a culture that still upholds the sexual
double standard. If he can be clear with his intentions, and be sure that the girl is interested in the
same thing, then this is not disrespectful behavior, but merely two adolescents exploring a sexual
experience with one another outside of a committed relationship.
Unfortunately, much of the research on adolescent boys comes from the dominant cultural
paradigm just mentioned, so we are mainly left with studies that specifically ask boys' their reasons
for entering relationships and for having sex as the only window into their relationship motivations.
One study asked 9th grade adolescents about their reasons for entering romantic relationships and
found that both boys and girls rated intimacy as their number one reason, followed by social status,
and finally, sexual pleasure (Ott et al., 2006). An interesting finding here was also that, of the
adolescents who were still virgins, boys rated higher in expectations of intimacy than girls. This
could lend support to the idea that boys want intimacy more than we give them credit for, or it could
simply reflect girls' internalization of the cultural message that boys just want sex, and therefore,
girls do not expect intimacy to be part of a sexual experience with a boy. Another study asked 10th
grade boys similar questions, and showed that their top two reasons for wanting to date a girl were
because they liked her (80%) and they wanted to get to know her better (55%). The top reason for
having sex was because a boy liked or loved a girl (Smiler, 2008). Unfortunately, all of this research
could be considered dubious. There is little way to know to what degree boys are just telling
researchers what they want to hear, or what "because I liked her" or "to get to know her better"
really means to a boy checking off a box on a rating scale. Without further research into boys' actual
8. Keeler 8
meaning-making and motivations when answering these questionnaires, it is hard to take these
results at face value.
Another window into levels of disrespect in a relationship is to look at power dynamics. The
assumption inherent within the "boys want sex" script is that they would force the issue, regardless
of the girl's needs or wants, which assumes a disrespectful stance toward a girl. One study has
refuted this to some degree, showing that both boys and girls see the girls as having more decision-
making power in relationships and that boys are more likely to report that their dating partner
attempted to, our actually was able to, influence them (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006).
Multiple studies have shown correlations between religious participation and lowered rates
of sexual promiscuity in adolescents (Leonard & Scott-Jones, 2010; Thornton & Camburn, 1989),
but once again, this does not point necessarily to a lowering of disrespect, because one cannot
assume that promiscuous sex is automatically disrespectful. To date, there are no studies on
religious participation's influence on factors related to intimacy and relationship quality.
Types of Disrespect:
Although there are myriad ways in which a boy might show disrespect toward a girl in his
outward actions, there are three basic categories these behaviors could loosely fall under: relational
disrespect, sexual insensitivity, and disrespect related to fears of vulnerability. Relational disrespect
refers to how a boy thinks about and interacts with a girl when romantically involved, and might
manifest as minimizing or dismissing her emotional needs, expecting her to behave like boys do,
becoming aggressive when she does not comply with his desires, or resenting her for feeling like
she is emotionally controlling. Sexual insensitivity relates more to behaviors such as sexual
9. Keeler 9
infidelity, expecting sexual gratification as a result of social status, seeking sex as a game to elevate
status amongst male peers, lying or feigning interest to convince a girl to have sex, plying a girl
with alcohol or drugs to lower her inhibitions, refusing to wear a condom, and not taking
responsibility for the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Fear-related disrespect, in some ways,
straddles the other two categories, and often involves a focus on sex rather than intimacy and the
sexual objectification of a girl to insulate emotions from potential rejection (Pollack, 1998).
Causes of Disrespect:
Relational Disrespect
Relational disrespect has commonly been attributed to boys' ignorance of girls' unique
emotional needs coupled with a lack of emotional tools to navigate these differences. This often
results in a boy giving up on trying to be caring and intimate and resorting to shallow sex (Kimmel,
2008; Kindlon & Thompson, 1999; Pollack, 1998). The first aspect of this troubling combination,
not understanding what a girl wants or needs, could stem from multiple factors. Newberger (1999)
sees part of this coming from a culture that focuses more on the sexual prowess of boys and men
than on the development of quality friendship with both sexes. Early maturing boys, who are
signaled both biologically and culturally to shift attention from their male-only circles of friends to
girls, are given less practice in the "art of friendship" if their interest has been diverted prematurely
to relations with girls that are sex-focused. Crucial skills are learned in these friendships that can
reduce confusion from girls about boys' intentions as well as give boys more insight into girls'
unique needs. Another possible explanation for boys not understanding girls' needs could simply be
a cultural avoidance of discussing male and female differences, especially within families and in
schools (Gurian, 1996). In her discussions with boys in sex education classes, Hilton (2007) found
10. Keeler 10
that boys are yearning to understand things such as how to pleasure a woman without hurting her
and what it is like to have a period, which clearly reflects a deficiency in boys' understanding of the
opposite sex. And although there is no direct research that addresses it, there is most likely a lack of
appropriate teaching by fathers to boys as well, based on the prevalence in the research of the
"father wound" that often develops in adolescence from the absence of an emotionally present father
(Levant, 1995).
The other aspect leading to relational disrespect, lacking emotional skills, has been
particularly attributed by multiple scholars to cultural stigmas attached to boys expressing emotion
and being vulnerable, which are rooted in masculine gender role socialization (Kimmel, 2008;
Kindlon & Thompson, 1999; Pollack, 1998). Shockingly, this starts in early infancy, a time when
studies have shown boys are actually more emotionally expressive than girls. But the developmental
influences of mothers, fathers, and peer groups result in a steady progression toward suppressing the
full spectrum of emotion and channeling it into narrow modes of expression, often anger (Levant,
1995). This could easily lead to conflicts in intimate relationships with girls.
Relational disrespect could also come out of other aspects of male gender role socialization.
A boy's urging by parents and peers to reject feminine qualities within himself, which some argue
leads to subsequent rejection of feminine aspects in girls, can also be a factor in this type of
disrespect because boys might easily lose patience with a girl who is responding different than he
might in a given situation (Kimmel, 2008). Masculinity ideology has also been correlated with a
greater belief amongst boys that relationships between men and women are adversarial, which could
lead to boys approaching disagreements as arguments rather than opportunities to learn compromise
(Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993). This is also the number one most frequent message given in at
11. Keeler 11
least one study of primetime television shows (Ward, 1995). The focus on male-only socializing
illuminated by Kimmel (2008) is linked in his research to beliefs that girlfriends must act like boys
to fit in to the social group. Finally, the social pressure to establish and maintain the "script" of
competent, independent, heterosexual masculinity amongst male peers can lead to a boy seeking to
have a girlfriend simply to avoid suspicion that he is gay, which points to a potential lack of
authenticity in a boy's interactions with the girl he is dating (Tolman et al., 2004). This could also
lead to seeking out emotional connection privately with his girlfriend, but distancing himself and
putting her down in social situations to demonstrate independence from her.
There are also family and peer factors unrelated to masculinity ideology that might be
contributing factors to relational disrespect. Inter-parental conflict has been correlated with boys
believing aggression in dating relationships is justifiable. This was also correlated with a lowered
ability to control anger responses (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). The same study found that peers'
attitudes toward aggression in dating relationships correlated with an adolescent's own views on the
subject. If a boy's peer group exhibited insensitive and aggressive behavior toward girls, then he
was more likely to as well. Substance abuse could also be a factor in relational disrespect. One
study showed that when one or both partners in an adolescent romantic relationship had a substance
abuse disorder, there was a higher prevalence of hostility and lower levels of warmth and affection
(Florsheim & Moore, 2008).
Taken together, it seems that relational disrespect can primarily be attributed to aspects of
male gender role socialization that then interact with other family, peer, and social factors.
12. Keeler 12
Sexual Insensitivity:
Sexual insensitivity does not seem to have such clear antecedents in the literature, but it too
often stems from aspects of gender role socialization. Especially significant here is the need to
publicly display that one is decidedly heterosexual and not gay, and that being a man means being
sexually competent and successful. The best way to secure one's status as not gay and sexually
competent is to have sex with a girl. This can easily lead to lying, feigning interest, and plying a girl
with alcohol to get her to acquiesce (Kimmel, 2008). Also, as briefly mentioned above, the early
emotional socialization of boys by parents, peers, and community can often lead to a funneling of
caring feelings into emotionless, lustful sexuality (Levant, 1995). Furthermore, research on the
prevalence of masculinity ideology in adolescent boys has been correlated with stronger beliefs that
pregnancy validates masculinity and a resistance to using condoms, both of which reflect an
insensitivity toward the sexual act itself (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993).
Community factors may be at play here as well. Both Kimmel (2008) and Kindlon &
Thompson (1999) discuss the culture of silence and protection that can form around boys of high
social status in a community, whether in towns while still in high school or on college campuses.
This is most often in the context of sports participation. One study showed that while only 3.7
percent of the student population at Division I schools were male athletes, 19% of the reported
sexual assaults were perpetrated by them (as cited in Kimmel, 2008). Kindlon & Thompson see all
of this stemming from a systematic training of talented male athletes in local communities to think
of themselves as entitled to the sexual attention of girls (p. 213). This also arguably could be linked
back to male gender role socialization that puts a primary focus on boys' sexual competence as well
as engendering a societal belief that "boys will be boys."
13. Keeler 13
The African-American adolescent boy has further environmental and economic factors that
affect how he approaches sex. Anderson's classic study of inner city Philadelphia (1989) portrays an
African-American boy culture focused on attaining status amongst male peers by proving sexual
prowess with multiple girls. This turns attaining sex into a game in which boys often feign interest
and caring in order to manipulate girls into acquiescing. Without more traditional routes available to
attain social status, like education and a steady job, boys rely on this "player" aspect of their social
existence to gain that status. Majors and Billson (1992) expand on this hypothesis and focus on the
long-term effects of institutionalized racism that result in many African-American males of all ages
exhibiting a "cool pose." This often manifests as emotional distancing and sexual behavior lacking
intimacy. Cunningham and Meunier (2004) conducted a further study that delved into the African-
American adolescent experience and found links between hyper-masculine attitudes and peer
experiences. They found that more callous sexual attitudes toward women were associated with
being alienated from peers and being involved in hostile gang activity (Cunningham & Newkirk,
2004). Overall, the general consensus seems to be that these sexualized, macho attitudes are a form
of coping with the difficult and sometimes hostile minority urban experience.
Giordano et al. (2009) have since critiqued Anderson's research on the player persona,
showing in their own research that disadvantaged black males are definitely more likely to agree
that others would describe them as "players," but 66% of the boys who self-identified as "players"
in their research were not black. For them, the player attitude cuts across racial lines, and the
biggest influence on the prevalence of this sexually insensitive persona was not race and economic
factors as much as the liberal attitudes of one's peer group toward sex.
14. Keeler 14
Fears of Vulnerability:
Feeling vulnerable can come from out of a variety of experiences, but no matter what the
situation, it essentially entails a lack of control of that situation's outcome. This goes for anyone, no
matter what age or gender. When two people share their lives together in a romantic relationship, a
person is required to navigate and respond to not only his own needs and desires, but also those of
another. This reflects a fundamental loss of personal control. With so much of traditional
masculinity ideology focused around control (of one's emotions, of sexual outcomes with women,
of one's financial situation, of one's independence from relying on others), it makes sense that
feelings of vulnerability might seem threatening to a boy. If a boy asks a girl out, he is not in control
of how she might respond. Actually opening up to a girl and sharing his private emotions exposes
him to the potentiality that she will reject or not understand those feelings. It also might lead to her
wanting to do the same, and that would mean not knowing what to expect from her, which means a
potential for failure. It is here where we can see how masculine gender role socialization toward
control (of one's own emotions and of situational outcomes) combines with a lack of knowledge of
girls' needs and desires to lead boys to avoid the complications of intimacy altogether and focus on
sex. It is so much easier to control and less risky to do so.
It is not easy to parse out exactly where all this fear of vulnerability comes from or how it
manifests in boys' interactions with girls. Some researchers point to premature separation from one's
mother in infancy as part of early gender role socialization that is a primary cause. This process has
been associated with reactions in later life that it is better to be alone than emotionally close, and
that commitment means losing oneself and becoming engulfed (Levant, 1995). Others point to the
focus on control from gender role socialization combining with the lack of physical and
15. Keeler 15
developmental maturity of boys compared to girls in adolescence. This leads to confusion,
frustration, and anger when a girl all of a sudden starts acting differently or talking about sex in
ways a less mature boy is not prepared for (Pollack, 1998). A boy's early experiences with the
personal control inherent in masturbation and personal sexual fantasy leads to a jarring adjustment
once he is required to be sexual with another human being. Many boys resort to wanting to
dominate or objectify girls to keep things simple and maintain a sense of control (Kindlon &
Thompson, 1999).
Seeking control to avoid vulnerability is impossible to discuss without also discussing
pornography, because this is an industry primarily created by males, for consumption by males, and
completely revolves around displaying sexual fantasies where men dominate women and control the
sexual act. Most pornography scenes depict a woman immediately aroused, ravenous for sex, and
willing to do whatever it takes to provide pleasure for the man. Scenes end not with the woman's
orgasm, but with the man's. And with one recent study showing that by age 14, 66% of adolescent
males have reported watching explicit pornography on the Internet, in magazines, or movies (Brown
& L'Engle, 2009), this is a potentially significant factor in boys' beliefs about sex and girls that
could lead to disrespectful behavior.
Kimmel (2008) looked carefully at late adolescent and emerging adult-aged boys' responses
to hardcore pornography, and found that many messages they had internalized were far from the
truth, including that women don't need emotional commitment to have sex, and most scarily, that
sex is the weapon men should use to get back at women who flaunt their sexual attractiveness but
reject a man's advances. This led to many boys expressing anger and frustration when girls did not
easily comply with their desires. It also led to sexually insensitive behaviors such as date rape
16. Keeler 16
(thinking "no" meant "yes") and a lack of focus on foreplay and emotional connection in the sex act.
Another study has shown that exposure to X-rated content leads to higher rates of sexual harassment
from boys, even up to two years later (Brown & L'Engle, 2009).
It is clear that traditional masculinity ideology's focus on control of both internal states and
external situations can lead to a boy acting disrespectful in any number of ways to avoid being seen
as vulnerable. It has also can lead to sexual insensitivity due to the requirements of demonstrative
sexual competence and compulsory heterosexuality. Finally, this gender role socialization
contributes to basic relational disrespect because boys are rarely taught emotional depth and
sensitivity while simultaneously being taught to act independent and competent. With such wide-
reaching impact on boys' behavior, it is clear that adults must start here in seeking to reduce boys'
disrespect toward girls.
Protective Factors and Potential Solutions:
Working to shift boys onto a new trajectory of development that does not force them into a
narrowly defined and destructive gender role will take concerted effort by the communities in which
boys are raised. A difficulty inherent in this process is that most men are still struggling themselves
with the constantly shifting dictates of this role. Various iterations of men's movements have
attempted to help men come to terms with their place in modern society in the past 30 years, from
the mytho-poetic men's movement of the 70s to pro-feminist groups in the 80s to the "new
psychology of men" approach within the field of psychology (Levant, 1995), but the ground gained
has been arguably uneven. No matter what, it seems imperative that men continue to do their own
difficult work to face the limitations that have been placed on them by their socialization in order to
be better stewards for boys as they develop into men. Joliff & Horne (1999) specify that men must
17. Keeler 17
face their grief over lost innocence and a truncated childhood resulting from early socialization to
suppress vulnerability and "boyish ways" (p. 10). Once reconciling their pasts, men must then turn
to boys and teach them ways of dealing with their own grief while they're still young to avoid later
dysfunction. Kindlon & Thompson (1999) focus on the role of the father in modeling respect for a
woman's point of view and demonstrating that emotional interdependence is an asset, not a liability
and a threat. Fathers must model a form of manhood that shows how emotional attachment to
others, and primarily his romantic partner, can actually lead to more fulfillment, productivity, and
happiness. They should verbalize that it takes emotional courage to do this, which is a form of
courage just as legitimate as the societally exalted version that is limited to situations involving
physical danger. In general, the prevailing wisdom amongst experts of the last fifteen years is that a
boy needs much more authentic involvement from his father in guiding him through the storms of
childhood and adolescence, but not without the continued confident involvement of his mother
(Joliff & Horne, 1999; Pollack, 1998).
Without adequate parental involvement in boys' lives, most experts agree that boys will turn
to inexperienced peers, media, and pornography for answers to their questions about girls and
relationships (Kimmel, 2008; Newberger, 1999; Pollack, 1998). The research previously reviewed
here lends credence to the notion that the answers they get from these sources are often inadequate
and off the mark. There has been some interesting research done on the influence of parenting on
adolescents' relationship quality that bears mentioning here. One study showed that boys report
increased intimacy in their romantic relationships within the context of lower levels of conflict with
their mothers (Kan, McHale, & Crouter, 2008). Another longitudinal study tracked boys and girls
from 7th grade up through their third year of college and showed correlations between a nurturing
18. Keeler 18
and involved parenting style and romantic relationships that were warm, supportive, and low in
hostility (Conger, Ming, Bryant, & Elder Jr., 2000). Newberger (1999) echoes this research when he
discusses how nurturing, encouraging, yet firm parenting can lead to the development of empathy in
boys, a significant protective factor when discussing disrespect toward the opposite sex. Harsh and
punitive parents generally raise boys whose empathy develops slower.
Discussions of sex need to be significantly altered as well, according to experts. There needs
to be a discussion of sex without such a uni-directional focus on girls protecting themselves against
the predations of boys. This lets men and boys off the hook for their behavior and contributes to the
persistence of the "boys will be boys" mystique (Kimmel, 2008). Parents and adults need to start
talking about what adult sexuality actually looks and feels like, which includes discussion of the
playful pleasure it can bring two people. But an equal focus must also be put on teaching boys the
skills needed to communicate with a complex partner's needs and want of pleasure that may be
different than one's own (Newberger, 1999). These discussions must also entail teaching boys about
the realities of rejection from girls, and must not just happen once, but as often as possible, to show
boys that discussing these topics is not something of which to be ashamed (Gurian, 1996). In sex
education classes, Lamb (2010) strongly advocates that adults must steer discussion away from the
tired themes of social skills training, risk behavior prevention, and how to avoid harm to one's self.
This often leads to teaching self-restraint to boys and assertive communication to girls, which
assumes a hostile or competitive relational exchange. Instead, she asserts we should focus on
teaching skills like mutual decision-making and honest expression of one's sexual desires to
counter-act beliefs that relationships must necessarily be oppositional. Overall, her main belief is
that sex education must be strongly rooted in ethics, (how our behavior can potentially harm
19. Keeler 19
others), and how topics like consent are not just related to sex, but to wider human rights we all
deserve.
Overall, no matter what venue it might take place, we as adults must be unafraid to discuss
with boys that their basic biology will lead to urges within them for non-monogamous, emotionally
unattached sex. This is not something to be ashamed of, but must be placed in a wider context of 1)
love, and 2) commitment, in order to make sense of the mess of feelings and messages about all
three of these elements that boys necessarily encounter when maturing. Sex can then be seen as
natural and pleasurable; love can be seen as sometimes nerve-wracking but ultimately rewarding;
and commitment can be seen as a social duty that helps boys contribute to the cycle of life in their
community. Social psychologist and expert on boys Michael Gurian puts it thusly: "Teaching a boy
how to love does not necessarily mean we've taught him how to be committed. Teaching a boy how
to be committed without teaching him how to love often leads to a hyper-responsible but resentful
adult male. Teaching a boy to get sex whenever he wants it doesn't teach him much else" (1996, p.
227).
Newberger states that we must move toward a "redefinition of adolescence to give it a
serious and honored purpose" (1999, p. 268). It is here where the most work must be done with
boys. I believe that boys need to regain a sense of pride, honor, and purpose in a culture that is
currently focused on the crisis they are supposedly going through. Prominent magazine cover
stories, such as Hanna Rosin's "The End of Men" in The Atlantic this past summer, do not help
matters any. This is not to say that what we are currently seeing play out in the lives of boys and
men is wildly inaccurate, but it would behoove us to focus more on what is going right. We must
also speak directly to boys rather than write more books and articles to parents who have already
20. Keeler 20
been put into a state of near panic by the alarmist tone of much of our popular discourse on the
topic. I believe boys are thirsty for answers and dying to absorb the wisdom we can pass down, as
long as it is honest, authentically communicated, and without a shred of condescension, pity, or
anxiety.
In order to return a sense of pride and purpose to boys, we must be less afraid to be direct
with them about how they're being harmed by social conditioning. Let us talk directly about the
limits society places on boys, and not be afraid to admit that socialization for boys is fundamentally
and empirically more traumatic than for girls (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995). Why are we so easily
able to write all of this in books to parents and teachers but unwilling or unable to translate it clearly
and honestly into words for boys as well?
Let us also couple this discussion with extensive and systematic discussion of the unique
gifts boys can bring to relationships, especially romantic ones with those often confounding
members of the opposite sex. Whether or not gender differences are primarily socialized,
biologically inevitable, or a blend of both, we must not be afraid to lift up and honor the uniquely
male ways of approaching situations and people that are beneficial to our society and to the people
with whom they interact. Combining these two tasks could provide boys with a clear, honest
assessment of the societal hand they've been dealt while giving them confidence rooted in positive
aspects of their character from which they can garner strength to push back against these societal
pressures. This is exactly what is being done in certain circles within psychology with wonderful
results. There are group treatments for adolescent boys rooted in discussion of the gender role strain
they all face, and psychotherapy based on positive psychology principles that focuses on affirming
male strengths before focusing on improving deficiencies (Richmond & Levant, 2003; Kiselica &
21. Keeler 21
Englar-Carlson, 2010). But we cannot only rely on clinical work from a small subset of dedicated
psychologists with small groups or individuals. This work must be scaled up to be conducted more
organically in the day-to-day interactions with boys in communities, schools, and families.
For instance, why could we not discuss the traditional male provider role as both something
that keeps families and communities healthy and strong but can also lead to psychological
dysfunction if a male does not understand how it fundamentally limits him? Why can we not look at
the predominately male trait of self-reliance as not only potentially problematic if a boy becomes
too isolated and unwilling to ask for help, but also a beautiful initiator of hard work and creativity
that often leads boys and men to persevere through life's greatest difficulties? We can do both, and I
think boys are able to handle the complexity of this message. All in all, helping boys become
exceptional, respectful men will take more than just telling parents what must be done. Boys must
be told too.
References
Allen, L. (2003). Girls want sex, boys want love: Resisting dominant discourses of
(hetero)sexuality. Sexualities, 6 (2), 215-237.
Anderson, E. (1989). Sex codes and family life among poor inner-city youths. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501, 59-78.
Brooks, G.R. & Silverstein, L.B. (1995). Understanding the dark side of masculinity: An interactive
systems model. In Levant, R.F. & Pollack, W.S. (Eds.), A New Psychology of Men. New
York: BasicBooks.
Brown, J. D., & L’Engle, K. L. (2009). X-Rated: Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors Associated With
U.S. Early Adolescents' Exposure to Sexually Explicit Media. Communication Research, 36
(1), 129-151. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Chu, J. Y., Porche, M. V., & Tolman, D. L. (2005). The Adolescent Masculinity Ideology in
22. Keeler 22
Relationships Scale: Development and validation of a new measure for boys. Men &
Masculinities, 8(1), 93-115. doi:10.1177/1097184X03257453.
Conger, R. D., Ming, C., Bryant, C. M., & Elder Jr., G. H. (2000). Competence in early adult
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 79(2), 224-237. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.224.
Cunningham, M & Meunier, L.N. (2004). The influence of peer experiences on bravado attitudes
among African American males. In Way, N. and Chu, J. (Eds.). Adolescent boys: Exploring
diverse cultures of boyhood. New York: New York University Press.
De Gaston, J. F., & Weed, S. (1996). Understanding gender differences in adolescent sexuality.
Adolescence, 31(121), 217. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Florsheim, P., & Moore, D. R. (2008). Observing differences between healthy and unhealthy
adolescent romantic relationships: Substance abuse and interpersonal process. Journal of
Adolescence, 31(6), 795-814. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.09.005.
Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of
adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71(2),
260-287. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Northcutt, M. J. (2009). Adolescent
identities and sexual behavior: An examination of Anderson's Player Hypothesis. Social
Forces, 87(4), 1813-1843. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Grossman, L. (2006). The secret love lives of teenage boys. Time, 168 (10), 40-41. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Gurian, M. (1996). The wonder of boys: What parents, mentors, and educators can do to shape
boys into exceptional men. New York: Putnam.
Hilton, G.L.S. (2007). Listening to the boys again: An exploration of what boys want to learn in sex
education classes and how they want to be taught. Sex Education, 7 (2), 161-174.
Joliff, D & Horne, A.M. (1999). Growing up male: The development of mature masculinity. In
Horne, A.M & Kiselica, M.S. Handbook of counseling boys and adolescent males: A
practitioner's guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kan, M. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2008). Parental involvement in adolescent romantic
relationships: Patterns and correlates. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 37(2), 168-179.
doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9185-3.
Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York:
23. Keeler 23
HarperCollins.
Kindlon, D. & Thompson, M. (1999). Raising cain. New York: Ballantine.
Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships:
Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3),
505-515. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.505.
Kiselica, M.S. & Englar-Carlson, M. (2010). Identifying, affirming, and building upon male
strengths: The positive psychology/positive masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys
and men. Psychotherapy, 47 (3), 276-287.
Ku, L, Sonenstein, F., & Pleck, J. (1993). Neighborhood, family, and work: Influences on the
premarital behaviors of adolescent males. Social Forces 72 (2), 479-503.
Lamb, S. (2010). Toward a sexual ethics curriculum: Bringing philosophy and society to bear on
individual development. Harvard Educational Review, 80(1), 81-105. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Leonard, K., & Scott-Jones, D. (2010). A belief-behavior gap? Exploring religiosity and sexual
activity among high school seniors. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(4), 578-600.
doi:10.1177/0743558409357732.
Levant, R.F. (1995). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. In Levant, R.F. & Pollack, W.S.
(Eds.), A New Psychology of Men. New York: BasicBooks.
Levant, R.F. & Richmond, K. (2007). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the
male role norms inventory. Journal of Men's Studies, 15 (2), 130-146.
Majors, R.G. & Billson, J.M. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Health and Co.
Manning, W. D., Longmore, M.A., & Giordano, P.C. (2005). Adolescents' involvement in non-
romantic sexual activity. Social Science Research, 34, 384-407.
Manning, W.D., Giordano, P.C., & Longmore, M.A. (2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts
of "nonrelationship" sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21 (5), 459-483.
Newberger, E.H. (1999). The men they will become: The nature and nurture of male character.
Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Ott, M.A., Millstein, S.G., Ofner, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B.L. (2006). Greater expectations:
Adolescents' positive motivations for sex. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health,
38 (2), 84-89.
24. Keeler 24
Ott, M.A. (2010). Examining the development and sexual behavior of adolescent males. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 46, S3-S11.
Parker-Pope, T. (2008, February 24). Peeking inside the mind of the boy dating your daughter. New
York Times. p. 2. Retrieved from EBSCOhost..
Pascoe, C.J. (2007). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L.C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent
males' heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3), 11-29.
Pleck, J.H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In Levant, R.F. & Pollack, W.S.
(Eds.), A New Psychology of Men. New York: BasicBooks.
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys. New York: Henry Holt.
Richmond, K., & Levant, R. (2003). Clinical application of the gender role strain paradigm: Group
treatment for adolescent boys. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(11), 1237-1245.
doi:10.1002/jclp.10214.
Rosin, H. (2010 July/August). The end of men. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com.
Smiler, A.P. (2008). "I wanted to get to know her better": Adolescent boys' dating motives,
masculinity ideology, and sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 17-32.
Thornton, A. & Camburn, D. (1989). Religious participation and adolescent sexual behavior and
attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51 (3), 641-653.
Tolman, D. L. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality
development within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child & Adolescent
Development, 2006 (112), 71-89. doi:10.1002/cd.163.
Tolman, D., Spencer, R., Harmon, T., Rosen-Reynoso, M., & Striepe, M. (2004). Getting close,
staying cool: Early adolescent boys' experiences with romantic relationships. In Way, N. and
Chu, J. (Eds.). Adolescent boys: Exploring diverse cultures of boyhood. New York: New
York University Press.
Ward, L.M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time
television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
24(5), 595-615.
