“No messages needed—just pats on the back”: Exploring young men’s reports of male and female friends’ sexual communications

Abstract

The current study provided an exploratory mixed methods investigation of the messages undergraduate men received about sex and relationships from their male and female friends. Participants included 310 undergraduate men who provided written responses regarding the specific messages they had received from male and female friends. Descriptive codes included: Just Do It, Meaningful Intimacy, Gentlemen, Postpone Sex, Women’s Sexual Desire, and Objectification of Women. Reports of sexual communications were typically consistent with the Heterosexual Script and congruent with the friend’s gender. Accordingly, reports of male friends’ communications often portrayed the accumulation of sexual experiences and partners as necessary and desirable, whereas serious, romantic relationships were often portrayed as hindrances. Reports of female friends’ messages, in contrast, primarily focused on the importance of romantic relationships and the idealization of sex within such relationships. Reports of messages that were incongruent with the Heterosexual Script were rare, and were more often found in reports of female friends’ communications. For example, female friends were the only source of messages regarding women’s sexual needs, desire, and pleasures. By documenting patterns of common and uncommon messages and their sources, the present study contributed insights into how male and female friends similarly and differentially reinforce different dimensions of hegemonic masculinity.

For young men, demonstrating sexual prowess confers status and affirms masculinity, especially within the hierarchical structure of male peer groups. Not surprisingly, young men report frequent and varied discussions about sex with their male friends (Cohan, 2009; Kimmel, 2009; Lyman, 1987). From telling sexual jokes to disclosing real or feigned sexual experiences, men construct and project their sexual selves (Korobov & Thorne, 2006; Korobov, 2011). Little is known regarding the conversations about sex that take place among young men and their female friends. It is possible that men may receive few sex-positive messages from their female friends because women’s interest in and enjoyment of sex remains largely taboo, especially if such experiences occur outside serious romantic relationships (Rubin, 1984; Tolman, 2002; Trinh, 2016). Alternatively, it is possible that female friends may promote similar messages to young men as do male friends, given the rigid expectations for men to possess and act upon their supposedly insatiable sex drive (Kimmel, 2009). Either way, women likely play a unique role in men’s sexual socialization. Indeed, young people report that the benefits of other-sex friends include opportunities to meet the other sex, learn about the other sex, and obtain insights from the “other” perspective (Feiring, 1999; Hand & Furman, 2009). What male and female peers do collectively, however, is regulate and inform young men’s sexuality; ostracism and acceptance represent peer responses to young men’s performances of hegemonic masculinity (Cohan, 2009; Smiler, 2013; Vanden Abeele, Campbell, Eggermont, & Roe, 2014; Way, 2013). Consequently, young men may feel motivated to seek and follow advice from friends of both genders. The present study provided an exploratory investigation of the messages young men reported receiving about sex and relationships from their male and female friends.

In early adulthood, cultural mandates and sexual scripts define very narrow pathways of “acceptable” sexual experiences for undergraduate men. Emerging adulthood refers to the developmental period that spans from the late teens through the late twenties and is marked by focused self-development and exploration that takes place in lieu and postponement of marriage, stable employment, and parenthood (Arnett, 2010). For many young people in the United States, college attendance consumes a significant proportion of the emerging adulthood years. The ethos of many four-year residential colleges – to let loose and party – is conducive to the “hookup culture” (Bogle, 2008). The hookup culture refers to the shared practices, values, and beliefs that sex without commitment is ideal; this culture reinforces the Heterosexual Script that ascribes to men the sexual agency that privileges (and constrains) them (Kim, Sorsoli, Collins, Zylbergold, Schooler, & Tolman, 2007). According to the Heterosexual Script, men are expected to fear commitment, possess an insatiable sex drive, and initiate sexual overtures (Kim et al., 2007). College affords opportunities to hookup that are unmatched elsewhere due to young people’s proximity and accessibility to same- and close-aged peers, many of whom are single and share similar backgrounds (Bogle, 2008).

Guided by the rigid, scripted criteria for masculinity, peers serve as arbiters who sanction young men’s actual and purported behaviors. According to Butler’s (1988) theory of gender performativity, gender entails continual enactments of gender expectations. For example, the stereotypes of the chivalrous gentleman and the horny, unfaithful “player” represent stylized performances within the repertoire of hegemonic masculinity (Smiler, 2013). Successful performances can affirm a man’s gender and elevate his social status, whereas failures may cast doubts over his claims to masculinity and can even bring about harm (Kimmel, 2009; Phillips, 2005). Accordingly, Vandello and Bosson (2013) proposed the theory of precarious manhood, which claims that manhood is a status that is simultaneously elusive, impermanent, and public. Given the stakes associated with performing masculinity well, it is not surprising that young men are often attuned to their own and their male peers’ performances.

The public nature of manhood contrasts with sexual behavior, which largely remains a private, personal matter; from this paradox, talk emerges as a natural avenue to publicly demonstrate one’s manhood, especially to male peers. Indeed, young men frequently report exchanging sexual jokes, advice, and stories with their male friends (e.g., Korobov & Thorne 2006). These sexual communications are diverse in content and tone, but the majority of such conversations tend to be simultaneously affirming and misogynistic. Sexual objectification of women is a common theme in young men’s conversations with their male peers (Flood, 2008; Stombler, 1994). The overall level of detail in the stories men convey varies. Whereas some men share explicit details about who their partners were, what they looked like, and which sexual behaviors occurred, others are intentionally vague and hope that their peers will read more (i.e., favorably) into the ambiguity (Currier, 2013; Kimmel, 2009). This storytelling does not merely serve as entertainment – it also affirms masculinity, elevates status, and strengthens bonds between men and their male friends. The peer context is so influential to men’s sexual behaviors, thoughts, and feelings that young men report that they often make sexual decisions with their male peers in mind (Kimmel, 2009). Similarly, some men report behaving in ways that diminish their own happiness (e.g., pursuing women they are not personally interested in) for the sake of obtaining their male friends’ approval (Elder, Brooks, & Morrow, 2012). Indeed, male peers’ approval is so seductive and gratifying that one young man proclaimed, “The actual experience of sex pales in comparison to the experience of talking about sex” (Kimmel, 2009, p. 206).

Conversations about romantic relationships, however, are less frequent, more varied, and evaluated less favorably by young men (Smiler, 2013). Korobov and Thorne (2006) analyzed 40 conversations about romantic relationships across 32 dyads of undergraduate men and their male friends and found twice as many “distancing” statements (e.g., nonchalance or indifference over partner and/or relationship) than “intimate” statements (e.g., favorable description of partner or relationship). Young men may temper their talk of their romantic partners and relationships because they are expected to prioritize their friendships with men over their romantic relationships with women (Hunt & Gonsalkorale, 2013; Kimmel, 2009; Smiler, 2013; Way, 2011). Young men are often chastised for being too devoted to and overly influenced by romantic partners (Cohan, 2009; Ray & Rosow, 2009). Men are also expected to be stoic; effusive displays of emotions are considered feminine, and masculinity is the antithesis of femininity (Bird, 1996). Accordingly, social pressures to demonstrate masculinity may foster young men’s ambivalence over romantic relationships.

Other-sex friendships increase across adolescence and peak in late adolescence and emerging adulthood, yet little is known about sexual communications between men and their female friends (Hand & Furman, 2009; Poulin & Pederson, 2007). This gap in the literature reflects a longstanding focus on same-sex friendships, which is understandable given the prevalence of sex segregation across the lifespan (Mehta & Strough, 2009). If women convey to men the messages that they themselves often receive—messages that idealize committed relationships, promote caution, and emphasize sexual risks (Trinh, 2016)—then women may be a rare source of serious messages in men’s sexual socialization. Supporting this possibility is the finding that undergraduate men have reported receiving more messages about the importance of relationships from their female friends than from their male friends (Trinh & Ward, 2016). Moreover, young men report feeling more vulnerable and more negatively judged when seeking advice from male friends than female friends (Elder et al., 2012), which may explain why men’s communications with women about sex and relationships may be qualitatively different than their communications with other men. Women’s messages to men about sex and relationships may also differ from men’s messages to each other because the latter often entail the objectification and denigration of women. Female peers may provide men a respite from the pressures to perform masculinity, with their less permissive messages and their weaker endorsement of traditional sex roles (relative to men’s) (Kimmel, 2009; Petersen & Hyde, 2011).

The patterns of sexual communications described above broadly characterize the experiences of young men in the U.S., according to prior research and theory. However, it is important to note that sexual scripts guide but do not determine sexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Therefore, the dominant sexual scripts that privilege and constrain men’s sexuality do not reflect the breadth and diversity found in men’s actual sexual beliefs and experiences. Indeed, studies on within-group differences reveal nuances that the majority of the literature—focused on group differences—tend to mask. For example, contrary to the popular lore of sex-driven, commitment-phobic “players” or “studs” in the sociological imagination, Calzo (2014) and Olmstead et al. (2013) found only 10–12% of undergraduate men expressed strong preference for and experiences of casual sex. Instead, Olmstead et al. (2013) found that almost half of the 200 undergraduate men they surveyed were “Committers,” who believed that sex should be meaningful and reserved for romantic relationships and who reported minimal casual sex experiences. Thus, despite being bombarded by implicit and explicit messages that encourage the pursuit of casual sex, few men report preferring sex outside of committed relationships.

Intrigued by the potential contrast between the sexual scripts regarding men’s sexuality and the heterogeneity of men’s personal sexual beliefs and experiences, we explored a critical context and source of men’s sexual socialization – their friends. As advisers, de facto sex educators, and matchmakers, friends have unprecedented access to and wield potential influence over young people’s sexual socialization. Accordingly, we used mixed methods to explore the content of undergraduate men’s reports of their male and female friends’ communications about sex and relationships. The objectives of the current study were twofold. The first objective was to document the prevalence of specific messages about sex and relationships, in order to understand what kinds of expectations are conveyed to undergraduate men, and who conveys them. Similarities and differences across reports of male and female friends’ communications were of particular interest. The second objective was to identify the themes that underlie these sexual messages, in order to examine the nuances within and across sexual scripts.

Methods

Data collection took place during the 2012–2013 academic year. Participants were 310 undergraduate men (M =19.52, SD=0.91) enrolled in a large, public university in the Midwest. Participants from Introduction to Developmental Psychology (n=53) were recruited in fall 2012, and participants in Introduction to Psychology (n=257) were recruited in spring 2013. The former group participated in a study in which they provided open-ended answers to questions about sexual socialization used in the present analyses, while the latter group participated in a broader mixed methods study that included these open-ended questions as well as other survey-based questions. Although all participants were male students enrolled in introductory psychology courses during the 2012–2013 academic year, students in the spring semester Introduction to Psychology course were slightly older than students in the fall semester Introduction to Developmental Psychology (M =19.83, SD=0.83; versus M=19.46, SD=0.91). Demographic information for 83% of the total sample was available (i.e., participants recruited from Introduction to Psychology). Approximately 88.6% of participants identified as exclusively heterosexual, and 5.1% identified as predominately heterosexual. Few men (0.4%, n=1) identified as bisexual, predominantly homosexual (0.4%, n=1), and exclusively homosexual (2.4%, n=6). One (0.4%) reported being unsure of his sexual orientation, and seven men (2.7%) did not respond. Most participants identified as White (69%) or Asian (22%), with fewer participants identifying as Black (1.6%), Latino (3.5%), Middle Eastern (2.7%), and multiracial (0.4%). Two participants (0.8%) did not provide their race or ethnicity. Participants reported their level of sexual and dating experience on a 10-point scale with the following anchors: 0 (just starting out/virgin), 3 (some dating/virgin), 4 (1–2 sexual relationships/no longer a virgin), and 10 (having had several sexual relationships). Men, on average, reported having had 1–2 sexual relationships (M = 4.91, SD = 2.66).

Participants read the following prompt: “Frequently, we receive messages about romantic relationships and sex from the important people in our lives, such as our parents and friends. Sometimes, these messages conflict, and sometimes they agree. Which kind of messages have you received?” Two questions were analyzed in the current study: “What did your male friends tell you about sex and relationships?” and “What did your female friends tell you about sex and relationships?” Participants were instructed to “list as many statements and messages as you can remember.” All responses were anonymous and confidential.

Coding Development

We followed the recommendations set forth by Braun and Clarke (2012) to develop codes. Braun and Clarke posited that developing codes involves a combination of inductive and deductive processes. Codes served to identify and label content of the data. Coding was done at the semantic level, whereby codes entailed specific and explicit meanings that were closely tied to participants’ responses. As a result, our codes frequently captured young people’s vernacular (e.g., one participant wrote, “they say ‘get it,’ ‘hit that,’ ‘tap that’ etc.”). First, each author reviewed the data and identified common and uncommon messages independently. This deductive process resulted in wide-ranging descriptive codes, from the recurrent messages on hegemonic masculinity and misogyny to the rare messages on romance and reciprocity. Next, we discussed our independently derived codes and determined a final set of seven distinct codes that covered the breadth of the data. Refer to Table 1 for representative quotations for each code.

Table 1.

Examples of Reported Messages

Code	Men	Women
Just Do It	Males like sex. No messages needed, just patts [sic] on the back. They say to have as much sex as possible and to not think about the consequences.	They have no problem with it; sex and relationships are part of life and as long as both partners are comfortable, its [sic] ok. They say to have as much sex as possible.
Stay Single	[…] First rule about girlfriends is don’t get one. The idea of getting and keeping a girlfriend is unrealistic; they think we shouldn’t be tied down.	They say romantic relationships are hurtful and to not get into them.
Meaningful Intimacy	[…] a relationship with someone I really care about is the best, both in terms of the relationship itself and sex. The men I choose to associate with view sex as an emotional and physical expression of love for a partner, not as an accomplishment or conquest.	Sex is a landmark point in a relationship. Sex is very meaningful. Relationships are precious/important. Girls seem to want to connect and get to know a guy before starting a sexual relationship.
Postpone Sex	They say no sex until marriage […].	[…] Sex is for after marriage. They say it is bad and I should wait.
Objectification of Women	Bone as many HOT chicks as possible. They talk about how big boobs are and if the girl was good in bed.	If a girl gives it up before you know her well, she is a whore.
Gentlemen	They say: become a strong-hearted person near a girl, and know how to take care of the girl.	They say to be gentle and responsible. Treat girlfriends respectfully. Don’t cheat on them. […] Don’t push people into sex. Respect boundaries.
Women’s Sexual Desire	N/A	They say that females want and desire to have sex as much as males do. They say girls love sex.

Description of Specific Codes

Code 1: Just Do It

This code captured messages that encouraged men to engage in sex. Some messages exemplifying this code portrayed sex as casual, “OK,” “fine,” or “not a big deal.” Others emphasized that sex is fun. Often messages encouraged men to have sex whenever possible and to accrue as many partners as possible. Some messages implied or directly stated that masculinity necessitates sexual experience.

Code 2: Stay Single

This code captured messages that encouraged men to avoid romantic relationships and commitment. Some of the relevant statements included explicitly negative messages about relationships, characterizing them as “too much work” or “boring.” Other messages emphasized the benefits of being single.

Code 3: Meaningful Intimacy

This code broadly captured two types of messages. One type of message was the “relationship-positive” messages that encouraged men to pursue committed, romantic relationships. The second type of message portrayed sex as an emotional or meaningful act that ought to be taken seriously and is reserved for emotionally intimate relationships. Note that these messages encouraged the establishment of a non-casual relationship prior to sex, but did not explicitly encourage postponing sex until one is older or until one is married (see Postpone Sex, below).

Code 4: Postpone Sex

In contrast to the Meaningful Intimacy code, the Postpone Sex code captured messages that encouraged postponing sex altogether. Specific messages encouraged postponing sex until one is older or until one is married.

Code 5: Objectification of Women

This code was used for messages that emphasized women’s bodies or conveyed misogynistic attitudes (e.g., messages about women being replaceable or only good for sex). Some of the messages discussed women’s specific physical attributes and/or focused on the importance of having sex with attractive women only.

Code 6: Gentlemen

This code encompassed messages that encouraged men to treat women with respect, to be kind, or to be careful not to hurt women.

Code 7: Women’s Sexual Desire

Statements captured by this code included messages about how women want sex, what women like and want sexually, and what brings them pleasure. Often, statements compared women’s sexual desire to men’s, emphasizing that men are not the only ones who want sex. For a response to receive this code, a male or female peer’s statement had to refer explicitly to women’s sexual desires. Note that statements about sex being “fun” were coded as Just Do It, not as Women’s Sexual Desire.

Focused Coding

Each author coded all the data independently. Each participant’s entire response to a question served as a unit of analysis. Reliability was calculated as Cohen’s kappa, for a random sample of 25% of the data. For all codes except Women’s Sexual Desire, coders were blind to the friend’s gender; knowledge of the friend’s gender was necessary for the coding of Women’s Sexual Desire messages, in order to determine whether messages about sexual desire referred to men’s or women’s desire. Cohen’s kappas for the codes ranged from κ=0.76 to κ=1.00: Just Do It (κ=0.88), Stay Single (κ=0.79), Meaningful Intimacy (κ=1.00), Postpone Sex (κ=0.80), Objectification of Women (κ=0.76), Gentlemen (κ=0.83), and Women’s Sexual Desire (κ=1.00). When the authors assigned different codes to the same response, they discussed the discrepancies, revisited the code definitions, came to an agreement, and assigned the final code(s).

Thematic Analysis

Any specific message may reflect multiple sexual and gender expectations and norms, and even among messages assigned the same code, there could be heterogeneity in content. In order to draw broad characterizations of and delineate nuances in friends’ messages, we conducted a thematic analysis. The objective of the thematic analysis was to identify patterns (i.e., themes) across the data; achieving this objective required organizing, describing, and interpreting the data in a flexible yet systematic manner (Braun & Clarke, 2006). We followed Braun and Clarke’s (2012) guidelines for thematic analysis. First, we generated themes by identifying how codes clustered together to form a meaningful pattern in the data. We then compared the themes and the data to check their correspondence and revised the themes and code clusters, when necessary, to maximize the fit between the two and to clarify the meanings. We interpreted those patterned responses in light of previous research and theories on masculinity and social relations.

Study and consent procedures were approved by the university Institutional Review Board.

Results

Prevalence of Specific Messages in Reports of Friends’ Communications

Friends’ communications about sex and relationships were common occurrences among young men, as evidenced by the fact that approximately 88% of men reported receiving specific messages from their male and/or female friends. The average lengths of participants’ reports of male friends’ messages and female friends’ messages were 12.9 words and 11.9 words, respectively. Our first objective was to document the prevalence of specific messages about sex and relationships, in order to understand what kinds of expectations and norms are conveyed to undergraduate men, and who conveys them. We calculated the percentages of men who reported receiving specific messages from male and female friends. The most common message in men’s reports of their male friends’ communications was Just Do It, with approximately 43% of messages receiving this code. Trailing far behind the Just Do It messages was the second most common message from male friends, Meaningful Intimacy, which was reported by 12% of undergraduate men. Fewer messages were coded as Objectification of Women (10%), Stay Single (6%), Gentlemen (3%), and Postpone Sex (1%). No men’s reports of male friends’ messages were coded as Women’s Sexual Desire. Among female friends, the most common message was Meaningful Intimacy (18%), followed by Gentlemen (13%), Just Do It (10%), Women’s Sexual Desire (8%), Stay Single (2%), Objectification of Women (2%), and Postpone Sex (1%). To examine whether there were significant gender differences, we ran McNemar’s tests for each code (see Table 2). Significant gender differences in frequencies emerged for all but the Postpone Sex code. Reports of male friends’ messages were more likely to be coded as Just Do It, Stay Single, and Objectification of Women, whereas reports of female friends’ messages were more likely to be coded as Meaningful Intimacy, Gentlemen, and Women’s Sexual Desire.

Table 2.

Frequencies of Reported Messages

Code	Male Friends (n=178)	Female Friends (n=135)	p
Just Do It	134 (43.4%)	30 (9.6%)	<0.01
Stay Single	20 (6.4%)	7 (2.3%)	0.02
Meaningful Intimacy	38 (12.2%)	55 (17.7%)	0.05
Postpone Sex	2 (0.6%)	3 (1.0%)	1.00
Objectification of Women	32 (10.3%)	5 (1.6%)	<0.01
Gentlemen	8 (2.6%)	41 (13.2%)	<0.01
Women’s Sexual Desire	0 (0%)	26 (8.4%)	<0.01

Thematic Analysis

Beyond the focus on individual codes, a thematic analysis was conducted to explore the data holistically, in order to identify significant patterns. The first theme – “sex as a game” – emerged primarily from reports of male friends’ communications that emphasized the game-like, competitive nature of sexual relationships (e.g., “Sex is more of a joke and competition to them”). This theme had three distinct yet interrelated components: “scoring” (i.e., having sex), women as adversaries, and men as fellow competitors and teammates. The second theme – “fair game” – emerged primarily within female friends’ communications, which highlighted the tension between acknowledging and adhering to the Heterosexual Script and criticizing and resisting the Heterosexual Script. Each of these themes is discussed in greater detail below.

Theme 1: Sex as a game

The underlying theme across reports of male friends’ communications was that sex is a game. This analogy of sex as a game epitomizes the expectations for adversarial relationships between women and men. In this “game,” the objective for men is to have sex, which corresponds to the most commonly reported message from male friends – Just Do It. Winning requires having the most sexual partners (e.g., “They always try to keep count of how many girls they have had sex with”), having sex with the most attractive women (e.g., “the more good looking girls you can get with the better”), and staying single (e.g., “[…] Relationships are dumb/pointless. You can’t have fun when you’re in a relationship”). Because women serve as the opponents by gatekeeping, and because of the pressure to “win,” messages about women as interchangeable sexual objects (i.e., coded as Objectification of Women) were also common (e.g., “Fuck as many girls as possible […] Quantity over quality. You’re always better than the girl”).

Whereas women were typically portrayed as having the straightforward role of “opponents” in the “game,” men held multiple roles that complicated the dynamics among male friends. On the one hand, men could be opponents by competing with each other for women. For example, one participant described this conversation with a male friend about his living arrangements for the near future:

On one occasion, when I told my friend of a girl I was going to be living with who had a boyfriend I was also going to be living with, he mentioned that “just because there’s a goalie doesn’t mean you can’t score.”

On the other hand, male peers share a common goal and are not always in direct competition with each other for specific female partners. Indeed, male friends or peers may serve as fellow teammates or “wingmen” (e.g., “They say lets [sic] go out, have fun, wheel broads, and try to get laid”). Thus, the role of male friends is complex and includes being both opponents (i.e., competitors) and “fans” (i.e., teammates) of “the game” and the “players.”

There is a caveat to the “sex as a game” theme. Some men reported more nuanced messages from their male friends that received codes of both Just Do It and Meaningful Intimacy. These messages typically focused on the tension between “sex as a game” and the desire for meaningful romantic relationships. For example, one participant stated, “They try to get with as many girls as possible for the most part but would settle down if they found a good girl.” In contrast to the sole-coded Just Do It messages that often implied a “wholesale” rejection of committed relationships, these hybrid Just Do It/Meaningful Intimacy messages typically focused on the timing of committed relationships (e.g., “They say to have sex with everyone; they say to get a good girlfriend when you are older or if you can put forth the work, now”). Such messages imply that, although sex is positive and should be pursued, “scoring” is not always the ultimate goal. Instead, a meaningful relationship with a “good” woman may be ideal, especially after college. Ultimately, men’s reports of male friends’ messages resembled a playbook that delineated strategies and identified objectives.

Theme 2: Fair game

Reports of female friends’ communications, however, resembled a mosaic – a composition of eclectic elements, likely drawn from young women’s acknowledgement and critique of the Heterosexual Script. The expectations for women in the Heterosexual Script were well-represented in the reports of female friends’ communications. Accordingly, men’s reports of female friends’ messages often included disapproval of casual sex and approval of sex within romantic, long-term relationships (e.g., “My female friends say I shouldn’t have sex with random people but that it is ok to have sex with someone I have known for a while […]”). Hence, many reports of female friends’ messages were coded as Meaningful Intimacy. Example responses included:

They say that relationships are emotionally and mentally intimate, and that it is not all about being physically intimate.

My female friends explained how relationships are worth holding onto, specifically those people we care about enough. Sex should be something that is done when both parties are really willing and care about one another.

Another commonly acknowledged component of the Heterosexual Script that was endorsed and conveyed by female friends was the need for men to “take the lead” while still being courteous. Accordingly, these types of messages were commonly coded as Gentlemen (e.g., “Men must make the first move” or “Treat girlfriends respectfully. Don’t cheat on them…Don’t push people into sex. Respect boundaries”). This set of codes– Meaningful Intimacy and Gentlemen – illustrated selective adherence to the components of the Heterosexual Script in reports of female friends’ communications. There was minimal denial of the Heterosexual Script in reports of women’s messages, but their communications were skewed towards addressing relationship dynamics. Women appear to uphold and convey sexual expectations for men that—if fulfilled—do not come at the expense of women.

There were few but notable messages calling for greater reciprocity between partners and promoting women’s sexual desire and enjoyment of sex. These less common messages directly undermined the Heterosexual Script, whereby women were expected to be partner-pleasers who were also devoid of sexual desires. Common rebuttals to those scripted expectations were simple proclamations that women enjoy sex across diverse contexts (e.g., “Sex is fun whether you’re in a relationship or not”) or that women’s sexual desires are similar to men’s (e.g., “Females like sex, too, as much as guys”). Still, acknowledgement of women’s sexual desires did not mean that young women ignored the stigma tied to women’s sexuality. Reports of women’s sexual desires were often accompanied by messages regarding discretion (e.g., “They say women want it as bad as men do but are not as open about it”). Notably, only female friends were purported to discuss women’s sexual desire. Messages focused on reciprocity and respect contrasted with the Heterosexual Script’s expectations for men to be sexually persistent and domineering. Interestingly, messages about reciprocity were more rare than messages about women’s sexual desire and enjoyment. Examples of such messages included: “They say if a girl pleasures you, pleasure her back,” and, “They say to always be respectful to women and get consent.”

At first glance, reports of female friends’ messages appeared to simply be in opposition to purported male friends’ messages, but the imperative to enact hegemonic masculinity was nevertheless present in some reports of female friends’ messages. For example, men’s reports of female friends’ communications sometimes reiterated expectations for men to initiate sex and shirk commitment (e.g., “Men must make the first move,” or “Men want no commitment. Men are selfish”). Accordingly, the theme of female messages – “fair game” – acknowledged the game-like aspects of sex. One participant’s report of his female friends’ messages succinctly captured the medley of messages common in reports of female friends’ communications: “they say to take sex more seriously, pay attention to emotions, and to be gentle and understanding but also assertive.”

Discussion

By documenting common and uncommon messages and their sources, the present study contributed insights into peer sexual socialization for undergraduate men, who presumably face clear and rigid expectations given their gender, developmental stage, and university context. Reports of sexual communications were typically gendered and—specifically—congruent with the friend’s gender. Accordingly, reports of male friends’ communications often portrayed the accumulation of sexual experiences and partners as necessary and desirable, whereas serious, romantic relationships were often portrayed as hindrances. Reports of female friends’ messages, in contrast, primarily focused on the importance of romantic relationships and the idealization of sex within such relationships. There were also reports of messages that were incongruent with the friends’ gender per the Heterosexual Script, but these messages were rare and more often found in reports of female friends’ communications than in reports of male friends’ communications. Female friends were the only source of messages that conveyed that women want and enjoy sex, and some reports of male friends’ communications included the value of committed relationships, particularly later in life (i.e., post-college). Ultimately, this mixed methods analysis of undergraduate men’s reports of friends’ communications illustrated the scope of young people’s endorsement of the Heterosexual Script.

The patterns of sexual communications in the present study illustrated the ways in which women and men are socialized to behave in feminine and masculine ways, respectively. Our findings demonstrate how these feminine and masculine ways of being inform communications about romantic relationships and sex across same- and other-sex friendships. Most notably and perhaps most ironically, the “silences” in our data – the messages that were not reported or rarely reported – best depicted the ways in which sexuality is gendered. For example, reports of male friends’ messages rarely focused on the joy of meaningful intimacy, and these messages—when reported at all—were often contextualized or qualified. Specifically, reports of male friends’ communications on meaningful intimacy emphasized that serious, long-term romantic relationships afforded benefits (e.g., support, companionship), but such relationships are best later in life (i.e., not during college). Indeed, the postponement of long-term relationships and “settling down” aligns with the ethos of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2010). Gender ideology limits both women and men, but women may be more aware of such limitations than men, given the waves of feminist movements and various legislative battles (e.g., Title IX). Young women’s awareness of gender inequality coupled with their less rigid gender socialization may explain why there was more resistance to the Heterosexual Script among female friends than among male friends. In other words, there were more reports of female friends conveying that they or women (in general) want and enjoy sex than were reports of male friends conveying that they or men (in general) want and enjoy committed relationships. The patterns in the content and source of sexual communications highlight how sexual socialization remains gendered and rigid, even within a context and developmental period of supposed “free-for-all” for undergraduate men.

Patterns of commonly reported messages about sex and relationships may be best explained by peer dynamics that generally support adherence to the Heterosexual Script. Our findings on men’s communications to men support theoretical and empirical research on the rigid gender socialization of men by men. For example, male peers’ overt disapproval of commitment and monogamy illustrates how male peer groups may constrain expressions of meaningful intimacy in favor of hegemonic masculinity (Korobov & Thorne, 2006). Reports of female friends’ communications adhered to what women were expected to value – committed, meaningful relationships. Given the stigmatization of women’s sexual agency (Phillips, 2000), many young women may ultimately choose to discuss safer topics, such as the importance of being a gentleman and situating sex within romantic relationships. Undergraduate men’s reports friends’ messages may be more telling of the expectations and pressures men and women face to be sex-driven and relationship-focused, respectively, and less telling of what they personally desire.

The unique contributions of the present study included the findings on rare reports of female and male friends’ messages that ran counter to the Heterosexual Script. Reports of female friends’ messages about desire for and enjoyment of sex were striking in the present study, given that girls’ and women’s struggles to identify, communicate, and act on their sexual desires are well-documented in previous research (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Tolman, 2002). Because the sexual double standard still persists (Bordini & Sperb, 2012), women risk being stigmatized for speaking about their sexual urges and pleasurable sexual experiences. When women’s desires and enjoyment of sex are conveyed in popular media – arguably one of the most prolific and accessible sources of sexual information (Ward, 2016) – such portrayals are often in service of men’s pleasure rather than women’s (Kim & Ward, 2012), and as a result, reaffirm expectations that women do not enjoy sex for themselves. The fact that some men report receiving these taboo messages from female friends suggests that female friendships may be one of the few sources of such information for men and that cross-sex friendships may be one context in which some women feel empowered to discuss their sexual desires with men. With regard to male friend messages that ran counter to the Heterosexual Script, reports of messages regarding meaningful intimacy were somewhat unexpected, given that the theoretical and empirical literatures illustrate how the male peer context is ripe for enacting hegemonic masculinity. At the same time, there is research that documents young men’s strong, intimate friendships with other men where self-disclosure is not uncommon (Smiler & Heasley, 2016; Way, 2011). Therefore, the men in our study who reported receiving messages about meaningful intimacy may have been reporting on close male friends’ communications. Ultimately, these rare messages provide insights into the agency with which young people conform to, resist, and negotiate beliefs and experiences that align with and run against dominant sexual scripts.

Collectively, our findings yield a portrait of masculinity socialization that is consistent with much of the contemporary literature on sexual scripts and masculinity. The themes emerging from recollections of male friends’ communications, and to a lesser extent, from female friends’ communications, underscore the expectations that men are in control of their relationships and their partners. This imperative to exercise control is a common message found in diverse sexual socialization contexts: primetime network television programs (Kim et al., 2007), pornography (Klaassen & Peter, 2015), and parent communication (Epstein & Ward, 2008). Similarly, many young men’s narratives illustrate their unquestioned and often unrecognized power in romantic and sexual relationships (Lamont, 2015; Morrison, Masters, Wells, Casey, Beadnell, & Hoppe, 2015). The continuity in masculine ideals in the present study and in the contemporary literature should not be mistaken for gender essentialism. Masculine ideals are not static. In fact, Connell (2005) argued that masculinities are historical, shaping and shaped by economic, social, cultural, and global changes (for a review of the history of masculinity in the United States, see Rotundo, 1993).

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study provides a contemporary analysis of the messages college men receive about sex and relationships from their male and female friends. It is important to note several limitations of the study. First, it is unclear to what extent retrospective written reports of friends’ sexual communications are representative of what was actually conveyed among undergraduate men and their friends. Given that the men’s responses were concise and the duration given to complete the survey was brief, it is unlikely that such reports are comprehensive; instead, their reports may reflect the most salient, influential, and/or frequent messages undergraduate men received. Salient messages about sex may have also been the most stereotypical ones, such as the messages conveyed by popular entertainment media (Kim et al., 2007). The prompts and questions also did not specify a time period to reflect upon; timing may play a critical role in the kinds of sexual messages conveyed because sexual goals change over time. For example, Bogle (2008) noted that hooking up was more common and desirable during the early college years than the later college years and after college. Therefore, our findings may reflect an age bias because the majority of our participants were first-year college students. The generalizability of the findings is also limited because the majority of participants identified as White, and previous research has documented race differences in undergraduate men’s sexual values and experiences (Ray & Rosow, 2009; Elder et al., 2012).

Future research should also consider longitudinal assessments of how friends facilitate sexual socialization, along with detailed interviews that may provide more comprehensive and nuanced reports of messages men receive about sex. Further, future research should consider assessments regarding men’s perceptions of the messages they receive. What do young men believe about what their male peers tell them? Previous research suggests some discordance between recollection of male friends’ messages and young men’s personal sexual beliefs (Trinh & Ward, 2016). Knowing that the costs are high if they fail to demonstrate their masculinity, young men may feel compelled to exaggerate or lie (Cohan, 2009; Flood, 2008).

Future research should also consider how friends’ communications about sex and relationships may vary by the quality of those friendships. The quality of friendships may matter more than whether one’s friends are male or female, because women and men describe high-quality, close friendships similarly; that is, great friendships are marked by trust, loyalty, disclosure, reciprocity, and vulnerability (Baumgarte & Nelson, 2009). Yet, the demands of traditional masculinity are at odds with the processes associated with great friendships (Smiler & Heasley, 2016). Friendships that create space for individuals to be their authentic selves likely foster more open, more diverse communications.

Conclusions

Reports of friends’ messages highlight the intractability of dominant sexual scripts that privilege and simultaneously constrain men. On the surface, being advised to be a “gentleman” or “player” may appear contradictory, but both reflect the fact that men are expected to initiate and direct sexual relationships. Equally notable is what kinds of messages were missing. The current study illustrates how friends’ messages about sex and relationships reported by undergraduate men are diverse but not necessarily flexible. What is common in reports of female and male friends’ communications is the expectation for difference and the imperative to navigate those differences– i.e., “sex as a game” versus “fair game.” Although there is greater breadth when both female and male friends’ communications are combined, such communications are still unlikely to capture the broad range of men’s (and women’s) lived experiences.