What Really Matters When Raising Boys: Consent, Peer Pressure & Doing the Right Thing

Dr. Becky opens by arguing that boys often know what consent requires: respect a no, stop when someone changes their mind, and speak up when friends behave badly. But knowledge and action diverge when emotions, sexual desire, rejection, or peer pressure enter the picture. She compares this with parents who know they should not yell yet sometimes do, because emotionally charged moments activate practiced patterns. A boy brings his history of handling disappointment, reading other people’s cues, and responding to group pressure into a high-stakes consent situation. Parenting does not guarantee outcomes, but childhood is where these emotional skills get repeated.

Introducing the live Good Inside community event, Dr. Becky says the Cornell sexual-assault allegations prompted parents to ask what they can do while raising young boys. She insists that understanding contributing factors does not excuse harmful behavior: people remain fully accountable, while adults should stay curious about how such behavior develops. She also notes that news about sexual violence can reactivate listeners’ own memories, bodily reactions, or uncertainty about past experiences. Boys are shaped not only at home but by pornography, social media, sports, fraternities, friends, texting, and the messages those settings reward, excuse, normalize, or label as masculine.

Dr. Becky rejects the idea that good parenting can overpower a damaging culture, but says home patterns can make harmful behavior feel unfamiliar. If a boy repeatedly learns that disappointment is tolerable, other people’s cues matter, and his own internal hesitation deserves attention, those experiences become “like home.” Later, when a group normalizes something dehumanizing, he may feel dissonance—a sense of “I don’t know about that”—rather than automatically attaching to the group’s behavior. She stresses that this promises nothing and does not prevent sexual violence by itself. It is a contribution between powerlessness and a guarantee.

The first skill is tolerating not getting what you want. Parents should set legitimate boundaries—ending a show, refusing another book, stopping a playground visit, or saying no to an unclear trip—and allow the child to be upset. Dr. Becky recommends brief statements such as “I know you wanted another show; we’re done,” “I believe you and I’m still saying no,” or “This decision’s already been made.” The lesson is not that disappointment disappears, but that a child can feel it without requiring someone else to fix it. Her formulation is: “The boundary is my job. The disappointment is his.”

When a child says, “You ruined my whole night” or “If you cared about me, you’d let me,” Dr. Becky says parents should neither shame him nor give in until the feeling vanishes. They can answer, “You wish I said yes. You’re disappointed,” without expecting him to agree. The goal takes thousands of experiences: shifting from “You caused my feeling and owe me relief” to “This is a feeling in my body, and I can cope.” She connects this directly to consent: a girl changing her mind after flirting or seeming to promise sex does not owe a boy fulfillment of his desire; he owes her tolerance of his disappointment.

The second skill is noticing people’s nonverbal cues, not merely obeying commands to stop. If a son interrupts a parent’s phone call, the parent can ask whether he noticed the call and what it meant about availability. If he teases his sister and she first laughs but then looks at the floor, the parent can point out that her body may be saying she is no longer enjoying it. Dr. Becky calls noticing a skill that needs ordinary practice. She compares this with giving a child a household zone and asking him to notice what needs cleaning, rather than only following instructions.

The third skill is helping boys think for themselves when belonging is at stake. Dr. Becky gives the example of an eighth grader who does not want to attend a party because something feels wrong, even though all his friends are going. Parents can respond, “I’m sure you have a reason for not wanting to go,” then pause—she suggests counting to 14—or say, “Tell me more.” This does not mean every inclination determines the decision; it means hesitation is real information worth investigating. Constantly pushing a child toward the group can teach him that other people understand his situation better than he does.

Knowing a boy would theoretically object to disrespectful texts is not enough, because the pressure is real: friends may call him a loser or exclude him. Dr. Becky recommends asking what would actually make speaking up hard, then rehearsing language a teenager might use, such as “That’s fucked,” “That’s not funny, bro,” or “Stop.” Parents should welcome children rejecting unrealistic suggestions because that helps them find usable words. They should also plan for freezing: a boy can tell a parent, pull one friend aside, or involve someone else later. Laughing along or missing the first chance to act does not eliminate the next opportunity.

Dr. Becky says these skills cannot be the entire solution because sexual violence is not an individual parenting problem. Schools, colleges, coaches, teams, fraternities, and parents also shape what young people practice and what groups reward. She highlights an idea from bystander-training discussions: alongside designated drivers, groups could have designated “upstanders” whose role for the night is to notice and intervene. Her closing framework asks whether boys can handle not getting what they want, notice other people, and trust the inner voice saying “I don’t know about this” enough to act. She wants more questions, varied perspectives, and collective systemic action rather than a neat ending.