“Sex is dirty; save it for marriage.” 

When it is time for that sex education talk, how and when parents deliver their messages invariably communicate more than the content. When educators are frightened, angry, confused, uncomfortable, not responsive to questions, seductive or otherwise inappropriate—it is these messages that are seared into the psyches of developing boy-children. Much of our identity is based, even in opposition, on learned hypocrisy and misdirection. The sexuality that we have cobbled together, in spite of (and including) the mixed messages we continue to receive about male and female sexuality, is the only one that we know. 

Sadly, boys link their attempts to explore and establish a sexuality and adults anger about sex, until males cannot separate the two. This linking of sex and anger (and later, sex and violence which is made inextricable by pornography) is a most pernicious trap. Instead of analyzing, many adolescent boys merely react to the shaming and forbidding tone that they experienced about all and any sexuality, overcompensating with aggressive inquisitiveness—insisting that all sex, any sex is good. 

Generations of parents have created an impossible situation where healthy sexuality and sexual expression (what ever those are and however each of us defines them) are forbidden. You may feel that any sexual behavior before marriage is immoral, which is absolutely your right, but in your haste to enunciate your beliefs, be aware that your message is often heard as “sex is wrong.” When I have asked high school and college students where (and what) they heard about sex, most of them say that they either heard nothing helpful to them at home or that the message they heard was literally sex is dirty/wrong. We trap boys (and girls) in a net where even questions about sex are taboo. We surround them with explicit images that are too often abusive. The more absolute our tone the more absolutely we shut our children out. 

Thinking, talking and experimenting with sex are represented as equally bad. Since all children at very least think or talk about sex, we have forced their discussion underground where misinformation is rampant and where we can exert no positive direction. It should be no surprise that many adolescent boys (and girls) rebel against our hypocrisy and (over?) react by insisting that all sex, any sex is good. We force boys into role of rebel and set up a system where pornography is the only place they can find any representation of sex. The primal images we referred to earlier are powerful and what boys may be trying to simulate when they use/abuse pornography. 

Creating A New Language of Love

In workshops with high school boys or college men, it is extremely rare that they will use the phrase “make love” without being prodded. Instead, phrases such as the following are commonly used to refer to intercourse: “doin’ her,” “ripping off a piece,” “banging,” “burying the hatchet,” “hitting it.” I don’t scold or bully them into artificially adopting the phrase “make love.” Instead, I model using the phrase myself. I don’t use “hit” or “screw” to fit in with the boys. 

While these words do not cause sexual assault (in other words, to excise them from the vocabulary would not end sexual assault), they do help reveal and reinforce the violence, depersonalization and lack of love implicit in the messages most boys receive about sex. Additionally, using these terms creates an atmosphere in which sexual assault is more acceptable—for some males it would not be much of a leap to go from “joking” about “ripping off a piece” to committing rape. I know there is a difference between language and action, but this locker room talk helps blur the distinction, and has resulted in promulgating a sex that at least sounds like rape.

While all boys and men do not use these and other truly profane phrases, those that don’t use them have definitely heard them used by other males countless times. Whether or not they are uncomfortable with the language, and many males are uncomfortable, only a very few challenge their use. 

Even though all males do not use this locker room talk, there isn’t yet a fully-formed alternative language for those who aren’t comfortable with the imperatives of stereotypic masculinity. “Nice guys” do exist—and must work together now to create a new language of love and sex, one that is non-violent, celebratory, consentual and passionate. It is an important part of my work to work with boys and men to co-create such a new language of love. 

Silent Fathers Engender Silent Sons

Where is the fear of males loving other males first modeled and learned? I believe most boys’ relationships with their fathers sets this process in place. Many males state that they remember the day their fathers pushed them away at age four, or five or six, saying “No more hugs—you’re a man now. Men shake hands.” This “push-away” masculinizing process teaches boys to expect little nurturing from males, to accept emotional disconnection and isolation as normal for Real Men and to settle for the bleak prospects they see before them. This process often employs violence to enforce boys enduring (and not questioning) the emotional and physical abuses inflicted upon them. 

Could our fathers speak about how they were taught the hate/fear of women? Did they ever learn to be excited instead of scared by women’s “mystery and otherness.” Did they learn how to appreciate the strengths and humanity of women? Did we hear of their love for our mothers? Or did they fear love, seeing vulnerability as weakness? It is tragic that their fear of enunciating their love for her, or speaking of their love for us, was the message we received. Was it sadness about their lives that we read as disappointment in us? This is a loss for fathers and their sons, and shows how the process of creating ambivalent fathers replicates itself from generation to generation. 

What boys learn is that they should talk about sports, politics and business with Dad (and other men) and should get their emotional needs met by Mom (and other women) if they admit to having emotional needs. At the same time, boys learn that they cannot talk about feelings with Dad, and that girls (and Mom) wouldn’t know anything about “man stuff.” Boys learn that feelings are female (second-best and somehow suspect). This teaches boys to compartmentalize their feelings and to keep their feelings under control, only to be revealed to certain people. 

Fathers’ fear of expressing love for their sons replicates itself in their sons’ fear of showing affection for males, or even admitting they need affection from males. Males want and need loving male contact. Too many males, starved for loving male attention themselves, have not been able to give boys a model of heterosexual men able to love (care about) other males. Boys learn to fear simply loving another male without first repeating all the denials: “I’m not like that;” “I’m not one of those.” This fear of loving our fathers keeps males from freeing ourselves from our fathers’ shackles and—click—we are locked into those same old shackles. The fear of generations of lonely, frightened men is a crushing burden all males carry.

The Necessity of Teaching Love

In a workshop with male teens, one boy kept using the phrase “hit it” to refer to intercourse. Every time he would say “hit it,” I would correct him by saying “make love.” After several of these exchanges, I asked him “What’s the problem with the phrase ‘make love?’” He said, “You old people can’t believe in Santa Claus. My generation can’t believe in love.” It is for moments like this that I continue to do this sometimes grueling work. In response to his stunning assertion, I took fifteen minutes from my previously prepared outline to speak about love. 

Boys learn that sex is paramount—that love is almost an impediment to the acquisition of sex. A coach in high school told me (and hundreds of other boys), “Don’t ever get married, you’ll never get laid again.” Most boys see marriage as a compromise wherein men grudgingly give up their bachelor fantasy of thousands of gorgeous, interchangeable women, settling instead for regular, if boring, sex with one woman.

Little girls, meanwhile, are fed radically different, though still pernicious, notions about marriage, families and children. Girls are taught a romanticized ideal of love. Girls are taught to play nice, believe the best about others and defer pleasure. Love is the goal, their reward. It is the outcome that they are taught to expect. While some of their notions may be unrealistic, trite or even dangerous to them, most girls are at least comfortable with discussing the idea of love. 

I often ask boys and men if they have seen lasting adult relationships that they want to emulate. Very very few say that they have seen such a relationship. Because so few boys have models of loving relationships that they want to emulate, most are uncomfortable with the ideas of caring and intimacy. Most boys are not taught how to love an eventual partner or even that love is a crucial aspect of relationships. A college coach related to me that one of his athletes had said about another, “He’s usually normal; but he’s such a pansy when he talks about loving his girlfriend.” 

Under pressure from other males, boys learn that in order to prove themselves real heterosexual men, they must distance themselves from the entanglements that love and committed relationships promise. At the very least they must publicly express disgust and hostility when asked about their willingness to be in a relationship. Love and intimacy are understood as “feminine,” and expressing such feelings would make a man, within this male illogic, female or gay. 

How Domestic Violence Is Taught To Boys

Baby boys are born innocent and sweet. Violence isn’t a biologically driven imperative, nor does being victimized “roll off” boys’ backs. Boys must be taught to suffer and to accept that suffering as “normal,” manly, even. Boys feel constantly vulnerable to the unpredictable, inevitable, brutality of other males. Appeals to boys that name and lionize their “strength” and encourage them to redirect this power are based on a fallacy—boys do not feel strong (except in comparison to girls or when they hurt girls or other more vulnerable boys). Males fear other males, and just as females, have painfully good reasons to do so. 

All girls and boys grew up trying to avoid male violence. Trying to guess which of “their acts” would set him off next; the focus was always on their responsibility not to “cause” males’ violence against them. The fact that nothing anyone did (or didn’t) do caused his violence, was lost in the heat of avoiding further abuse. They didn’t have the luxury of imagining a world wherein they could be safe from the often-unpredictable predations of males. 

Much of the abuse of steroids which are experiencing explosive growth is a result of males fearing potential abuse, wanting to protect themselves from further abuse and/or wanting to be stronger so as to be better able to retaliate against their male perpetrator(s). Boys hurt girls and other boys to avenge themselves for the abuses, either threatened or experienced at the hands of more powerful males. Males’ strength is illusory as long as they continue to fear other males. An exploration of how boys are affected growing up in homes where domestic violence is normal, is long overdue.

Millions of boys grew up in families wherein male cruelty to women and children was the norm. There are only a few studies that measure the effects on these males who grew up witnessing and/or experiencing domestic violence. Many males report having wished that they’d been physically stronger so they could have protected their mothers and extracted revenge upon the perpetrator. Nationally, the percentage of 12-22 year-old boys and men incarcerated for homicide who had killed their mothers’ abuser ranges from 55% to 75%! Instead of media misdirection and fear-of-youth mongering about “youth violence” committed in a vacuum, these, the real roots of teen violence, are not discussed. While violent revenge is never a proper response, it is a predictable, inevitable outgrowth of boys witnessing and experiencing domestic violence. Not all boys’ rage is attributable to their and their mothers’ abuse, but much of the rage that we see writ large in boy culture springs from domestic violence.

The little boy witnessing his father (or father surrogate) verbally and/or physically assaulting his mother is often torn between his love for this man and his love for and desire to protect his mother. Sometimes, he is further conflicted because he fears trying to defend her and impotent anger at this man for creating the situation where the boy needs to defend her. He has empathy for his mother and frustration over his inability to stop the violence. His “weakness” (inability to stop the perpetrator) is something he has in common with his mother.  Often he and other children are beaten, giving him this too in common with his mother. As he watches the adults interact, he is at that very moment learning that at least within his family, “might makes right.” 

From the war zone at home, these boys and boys with non-abusing fathers then go to school where they are menaced and hurt by bullies.  As they are bullied, boys can further identify with the relative helplessness of females. They now have experience being vulnerable, as were their mothers. But by second grade, boys have learned from older males, peers and media that “female equals weak” and everything male is “strong and laudable.” Vulnerable to pressure from other males to be Real Men, many boys stop identifying with their mothers. They no longer want to be bullied and victimized as she was. Since there is only the choice between bully and victim, which is how it seems to boys, why would anyone be surprised when so many opt for bully, or identify with bullies, especially after being so often victimized? 

Sadly, some boys also increasingly come to identify with the powerful male perpetrator of domestic abuse and vow never again to be weak (helpless to stop the violence against their mothers) or ever again allied with other weak persons, female or male. Many boys start to blame their mother (and other females) for her weakness, both familial and social. After the abuser absents himself, some boys take over their role, and begin to abuse their girlfriends and/or mothers. 

How can boys react with anything but impotent rage and contempt for adults who wouldn’t do enough to stop the endless violation of their mothers? What is the message to boys who witness domestic violence and who have been physically, emotionally or psychologically abused and neglected? Boys learn that: 1) violence against females does not matter, and, 2) violence against males matters even less. Even if males have been brainwashed to accept their abuse as normal, why be surprised that some resent the “special attention” they perceive is paid to the abuse of females? 

Asking abused males to extend love and compassion to others (female or male) or even to themselves, without first helping them to name and begin to heal the source of their trauma, is futile (and cruel). When I express empathy for the abuse their mothers and they have survived, almost all the boys are dismissive of the ill treatment directed at them. “Just a part of being male” they say. They cannot imagine life free from abusive males. The variety and extent of the abuse inflicted upon males for thousands of years has made such abuse “normal.” Since that abuse is accepted, no boy is automatically safe. As the abuse of males has long been normalized, no girl is safe. 

The culture and ambivalence about the violence in males’ lives results in mixed messages, which cause boys much confusion, anguish and guilt. Many boys who witnessed domestic violence believe that it is inevitable that they too will be abusive. For ten years, I saw monthly groups of teen boys in juvenile corrections. I found that quite a few of them assumed that males were genetically predisposed to physically abuse females. I have heard the same belief stated in sessions with male athletes. They express shock when I tell them that there is no such “abuse gene.” I do caution them that they are possibly more likely than are boys who had not seen domestic violence, to use cruelty or the threat of cruelty to get their way. They might be moreso predisposed to believe and act on the belief that it is a man’s right (and duty) to control “his” woman. They, as well as all other boys, need good skills on non-violently forming and maintaining long-term relationships including marriage. They, as well as all other boys, need good skills on raising children without violence. No boys of previous generations received such training in school, and few did at home. Who is teaching boys today?

Having witnessed or experienced violence is not an absolute predictor of who will later perpetrate. I rarely know who in my audience is a witness, survivor or perpetrator of domestic violence or a survivor and/or perpetrator of sexual assault. I have found as many survivors and perpetrators in my workshops in fraternities, athletic teams and first-year student orientations as in prison. It doesn’t excuse anyone’s behavior to help them understand how their life experiences taught them violent attitudes and behaviors. Similarly, neither does expressing empathy for what they faced (and often still face) exonerate them for the abuses some subsequently commit.

Some Random Thoughts

Growing up male is a forced ride on a roller coaster; one we are guaranteed in advance will be hazardous. 

Like an incestuous uncle, pornography holds out its arms to boys, harming while pretending to love, accept and nurture unconditionally. Pornography seems to say, “We know what you’re thinking about and it is good.” And like the abusive uncle it is, pornography says, “Let’s keep this our little secret. We won’t tell your parents, they wouldn’t understand. They’re squares.”

How does a male judge sex with an incapacitated victim to be “good sex?” If he is drunk as well, how does he gauge “good sex” for himself? If he ejaculates before he regurgitates? 

Imagine a father who told us that our penis was not a dick. That a dick is stupid, a tool, a weapon and that penises were soft even when hard, that they are sensitive, sweet extensions of our hearts.

Emotionally-distant Dads do not “create” gay sons (or else almost all sons would be gay).

In the theocratic US, oral sex means fellatio; cunnilingus is sin.

Ask a partner what they want or need sexually ? No way. Hey, I don’t ask for directions when I am driving. Do you really expect me to ask for directions when I’m fumbling around in her pants?

The next day after a date, males are still asked, “Did ya do her?” None of us are asked, “Did she come?”

“In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the female orgasm was an ill-proven hypothesis in male culture, fabled but not fully believed.”

With all women’s hard fought and undeniable progress, there are still, in 2021, no positive words for a sexually-active woman in male language. Hint: “slut,” “prostitute,” “nymphomaniac” do not count (except to tens of thousands of high school boys and college men who, without irony, have cited these when asked for positive words or phrases for a sexually-active woman.

Millions of females have been left unsatisfied by selfish, clumsy or ignorant males, and females are not bringing guns to bed to guarantee that they “get theirs.”

Many males have bragged, “She screamed for more.” I reply, “Of course she did. You came in what, about 30 seconds?”

I inform them, “Most females won’t have orgasms from intercourse alone.” They ask, “What do you do then?” I reply, “Kid, that’s why God gave you a tongue.”

JOSEPH WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES © 1998