Boys & Men Online

David Sasaki

The latest research, policy, and commentary about the online lives of boys and men. A project of the American Institute for Boys and Men. www.menonline.org

  1. 4d ago

    How to Fix Youth Sports for Boys

    Youth sports offer benefits, including better health, stronger academics, and deeper social connection. The good news is that the participation of girls in sports has increased in recent decades. The bad news is that boys’ involvement has stagnated, and perhaps even declined, while the cost and time commitment of travel sports seems to go up every year. For boys who start later, develop later, or want a less intense experience, the options can be limited. We have recreational leagues for young children, intramurals in college, and adult leagues. But what happens in between? In this week’s episode, I speak with Vince Minjares and Zach Moo Young about Boys in Sports, a report from the Aspen Institute’s Project Play and the American Institute for Boys and Men. Drawing on survey data and conversations with boys, their research explores what young people want from sports and what gets in the way. We begin with our own experiences as players and coaches, including the adults whose belief in us mattered—and those whose judgment we took too seriously. We also discuss: * How early specialization and differences in physical development can leave interested boys on the sidelines. * What intramurals, additional teams, and school-community partnerships could offer students who aren’t on a school team. * How highlight reels—and the possibility of becoming someone else’s highlight—can deter effort and make mistakes feel more consequential. * What video games offer in autonomy, friendship, and opportunities to fail and try again, and why some boys say gaming actually increases their interest in sports. * How to support coaches, especially teacher-coaches, in responding to boys’ lives on and off the court. * Policy ideas to expand options and participation, including by tapping into money from social media settlements, sports betting revenue, and digital ad taxes. Their first recommendation sounds almost too obvious: ask students what they want to play. You can listen to the audio above or watch the video below. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments or via a direct message. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

  2. Oct 29

    Can boys find belonging on Discord?

    When the pandemic shut down Next Gen Men’s after-school programs, the team tried moving their curriculum onto Zoom. Neither the adults nor the boys enjoyed it. So they asked the boys what they’d prefer. “We’re on Discord,” they said. That was the seed for NGM Alliance, an online community where young people play games, share interests, and find support. It sounds like online summer camp, but with with Minecraft and Fortnite instead of archery and canoeing. Jake Stika is a co-founder of Next Gen Men, a Canadian nonprofit working with boys and men—and the publisher of Voice Male magazine. We discuss: * Why boys are more likely to join a community recommended by a friend than one recommended by a parent. * How to help teenagers work through conflict rather than simply remove them from an online group. * How Jake’s own struggles with depression and the rigidity of masculinity norms inspired the creation of Next Gen Men. * Where Jake and I disagree about the usefulness of terms like “patriarchy,” and whether conversations about character and moral ambition can reach men who feel alienated by polarized debates over masculinity. How do we give boys more room to be themselves without handing them another prescription for how to be a man? Jake says Next Gen Men once described its work as “redefining masculinity.” When people asked for the new definition, the team realized that “undefining” was closer to what they meant. While Jake and I might disagree about some of framing around masculinity, we share the same goal: helping boys and men find connection, belonging, and purpose in their lives. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments or via a direct message. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

  3. Oct 22

    Are we overthinking social connection?

    Nicholas Epley has made a career studying what gets in the way of social connection. Over and over again, he finds that it’s us. In one of experiment, people expected a phone call to be more awkward than an email. But when they actually reached out, those assigned to call felt more connected—and the conversation was no more awkward than it was for those who typed. That gap between how we expect an interaction to go and how it ends up shows up throughout Epley’s work. We often worry about finding the right words, making a good impression, or being rejected. And yet we typically underestimate how much someone else will appreciate hearing from us. Epley is a behavioral scientist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the author of A Little More Social. In this week’s conversation, I ask whether his advice would change if he were writing specifically for boys and men. His answer surprised me: men and women often have similar fears—and both underestimate the benefits of connecting. We discuss: * How Epley went from being terrified of public speaking to enjoying it, and what practice taught him about how we think we’re assessed versus what others really care about. * Why we tend to exaggerate gender differences in empathy and social skills. * Why we worry about sounding competent when the other person often cares more about whether we seem warm, honest, and interested. * What a voice conveys that text leaves out, especially when we disagree. * How technology helps us connect across distances while also making it easier to spend an entire day alone. * The tension between wanting genuine connection and seeking the status metrics of likes, followers, and attention emphasized by social media. You can listen to the audio above or watch the video below. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments or via a direct message. Better yet, why not call a friend who has been on your mind? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

    Are we overthinking social connection?
  4. Oct 14

    Inside DraftKings: A Former Analyst Speaks Out

    Jayden Butts was proud of the work he did at DraftKings. Fresh out of college, he landed a well-paying job, worked with massive datasets, and helped build a system that could save the company millions of dollars. Over time, he began to see those accomplishments differently. Looking at the harms accumulating from the expansion of online gambling, he came to see his work as “friendly fire” on his fellow Gen Z young men. In this week’s episode, Jonathan D. Cohen speaks with Butts, whose account of his work at DraftKings was recently featured in a New York Times investigation. Their conversation explores how gambling was normalized long before he joined the industry, how DraftKings’ promotional system targets vulnerable users, and what ultimately changed his view of the business. They discuss: * How childhood scratch tickets and betting with Counter-Strike “skins” made gambling feel like an ordinary part of growing up * What first drew Butts to DraftKings * How customer data could predict who would respond to a promotion * How a tool he initially built to reduce promotional spending became a way to target customers more likely to lose * His policy proposals to reduce harms and increase transparency Butts is candid about both his pride in solving difficult problems and his growing discomfort with what those solutions enabled. If you’re skeptical about the need of new regulations for online gambling, this one is worth your time. We welcome your thoughts in the comments or in a message. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

    Inside DraftKings: A Former Analyst Speaks Out
  5. Oct 5

    Building the Lives Boys Want to Live

    What does it take to get teens to reduce their screen time? And is that the first step to flourishing? Mike Goldstein is the founder of the Center for Teen Flourishing, which he describes as an R&D lab for the hours between 3 PM and 3 AM. By his estimate, about 40% of teens are languishing. They’re not in acute crisis, but they sure aren’t flourishing. And so he’d to see like more minds working on a practical problem — how do you help a young person get unstuck? We discuss: * Whether a busy teen is a flourishing teen, and whether screen time is less important in itself than what it crowds out. * Whether “flourishing” should be defined by participating in offline activities or by things that are harder to measure, like agency, motivation, and progress toward one’s goals. * What Mike has learned from coaching teenagers with ADHD. (About 80 percent of the teens he coaches are boys.) * The role of institutions in helping young people discover something they care about. * Whether Iceland-style recreation debit cards could be a better use of the Meta settlement funds than additional funding for therapy. * Why so many teens drop out of therapy, and what coaching offers as an alternative. * Mike’s favorite pilot projects to test, including coaching low-income college students into internships. If we want young people to spend less time scrolling passively online, how can it become easier to find something else worth doing? You can listen to the audio above or watch the video below. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments or via a direct message. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

    Building the Lives Boys Want to Live
  6. Sep 29

    Commentary: Some Social Gambling is Worth Protecting

    Intro: Much of our work at AIBM documents how online sports betting harms young men. So it may surprise readers that our sports betting policy fellow is making the case for more gambling, of a certain kind. Isaac Rose-Berman argues that low-stakes games among friends can be a real source of connection, but the apps may be crowding them out. Isaac also discusses the piece with colleagues Jonathan D. Cohen and Anders Knospe in an accompanying conversation. Watch the video below, or listen to the audio above — or via your favorite podcasting app. Some of my fondest college memories are from the poker table. For four years, rain or shine, mask mandate or not, tough week or tough breakup, I could count on a Sunday night spent joking around with friends at the semi-regular cost of $20. One of the most common questions I hear from parents concerned about gambling is whether they should let their sons play poker or join fantasy football leagues and March Madness pools. My answer depends on their age and the stakes (ten-year-olds shouldn’t be playing cards for hundreds of dollars); I generally advise against a blanket ban. Social gambling—low-stakes games among friends—can be an important source of connection at a time when men are spending more time alone. Last year, the psychologist Annie Maheux wrote for AIBM about the social benefits of video games for young men. She noted that while gaming is “often seen as an activity that isolates, addicts, and even ruins young men’s lives,” it can also be “a primary space for social connection.” As one mother of a 13-year-old boy observed, her son and his friends often discussed school, friendships, and even intimate emotions while gaming together—in between the standard cheers and jeers. Investigations into the social dynamics of gambling are scant, but some research has identified similar benefits. A 2012 analysis found that the main reason for poker tournament participation was “social interaction,” and that tournaments can “overcome social, age, and gender barriers.” A 2026 study found that betting often served as an ice-breaker to initiate social interaction. As one participant put it, gambling is “a starting point, and then everything goes from there.” There are real risks. Gambling can beget more gambling, and underage gambling is associated with a greater risk of harm later in life. But low-stakes games with friends, in addition to providing social connection, may also substitute for more harmful and isolating alternatives. Friends have reasons to care about how much their friends lose. A 2024 study of Swedish poker players described how the men limited buy-ins and rebuys out of concern for each other’s finances. As researcher Klara Goedecke put it, poker “encompassed care which moderated competitiveness.” Casual games can also offer a forgiving environment to learn important gambling lessons; one player emphasized accepting what he couldn’t control, explaining that “all you can do is perform your best every time” without getting angry or sad, because “[losing] is a part of it.” Commercial gambling adds a cost that games among friends don’t have: the operator’s cut. The incentives are different, too: companies want to maximize what they earn from each user, without the same regard for their wellbeing. A recent New York Times investigation found that DraftKings, one of two major sports betting operators in the US, uses AI to identify the customers likeliest to lose and target them with inducements to keep betting. The company has resisted using the same technology to protect gamblers at risk of addiction. Sports betting and other forms of commercial gambling can be social. Friends can all bet $10 on a game to make it more exciting and watch together. But that social interaction is optional, and smartphones have made it easier than ever before to gamble alone. Putting together a poker game requires coordinating schedules, finding a host, and agreeing on stakes. That friction naturally limits how often most people play, whereas an app can be opened anytime, anywhere. Technological advancements have also made modern gambling faster, more intense, and more addictive. Historically, sports betting was seen as the safest form of gambling, as wagers typically took hours to resolve. Today, you can bet on every pitch in a baseball game and possession in a basketball game. Same-game parlays, invented just a few years ago, now account for more than half of all sportsbook wagers and allow gamblers to easily create custom lottery tickets. Personalized, optimized online gambling not only increases the risk of harm. It can also change expectations, increasing people’s desire and tolerance for more potent forms of gambling while making slower, more social alternatives less appealing. Someone accustomed to daily bets and longshot payouts is more likely to become bored by a low-stakes, season-long fantasy league. So is the cure for male loneliness more poker nights? Not on its own. But as apps make gambling faster, lonelier, and more lucrative for operators, it’s worth remembering that gambling can also be a social activity—something people do with friends, around a table, rather than alone against an app. Policymakers and parents who treat all gambling the same risk losing the kind that brings young men together in their efforts to address the kind that isolates and exploits them. Not everyone on our team is fully convinced. In the accompanying video, Jon asks whether social betting today is just the high-potency version with friends in the room. Anders points out that men without college degrees are twice as likely to report having no friends. That means the men who could gain the most from social gambling are also the ones we worry about most. You can watch their full conversation below: This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

  7. Sep 24

    Is the manosphere really a rabbit hole?

    Is the manosphere a rabbit hole? In Harmony Labs’ analysis of YouTube channels, viewers of male grievance content also watched plenty of other things, from sports to news and comedy. That complicates the picture of young men being drawn into a single world of grievance content. However, it does not tell us what happens when someone leaves YouTube to join a creator’s paid community. Two recent reports from our partners at Equimundo examine different parts of that story. The Grift Economy, produced with Reset Tech, maps how some creators turn young men’s aspirations and insecurities into revenue. Men’s Flourishing + Media, produced with Harmony Labs and LinkUp Lab, looks at what people watch and how different audiences respond to selected media. In this week’s conversation, Caroline Hayes and I explore what each report can tell us—and what we still need to learn. We discuss: * How some creators turn young men’s aspirations and insecurities into attention, paid memberships, and courses * Whether grievance about women is central to that business model, or whether typical self-improvement marketing does more of the selling * What Harmony Labs found when it looked for a “rabbit hole” in men’s YouTube viewing * Why watching a provocative clip tells us little, on its own, about what a young man believes * How to learn from young men who already assess online content critically How can we take exploitation and misogyny seriously without assuming that every young man who encounters this content is drawn in by it? Caroline and I don’t agree on every part of the answer, but we agree that the distinction matters for research, for parents and educators, and for anyone trying to offer young men something better. You can listen to the audio above or watch the video below. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments or via a direct message. As we book upcoming guests, what else would you like to know about manosphere research? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

    Is the manosphere really a rabbit hole?
  8. Sep 17

    Beyond Financial Nihilism

    In this week’s episode, Jon speaks with Thea Garon of the Urban Institute about a paradox in young adults’ financial lives: many are saving and planning for the future while also turning to crypto, prediction markets, and sports betting. They discuss: * Why “financial nihilism” is an incomplete story: Gen Z may feel that the economy is stacked against them, but they are also saving and planning for their futures. * How sports betting and prediction markets can make gambling feel, sound, and look more like investing. * How fun, social connection, and social media messaging shape financial decisions. * What we still don’t know about young people’s financial behaviors, and how policymakers, banks, and educators can build useful guardrails. Gen Z is trying to build financial independence and keep up with their peers on social media in an environment that feels unusually uncertain — and they are being offered plenty of high-risk ways to do so. So how can financial institutions, policymakers, and educators meet the demand while ensuring meaningful consumer protections and financial literacy? You can listen to the audio above or watch the video below. As always, we appreciate your feedback in the comments below or via a direct message. Where do you think the line between investing and gambling should be drawn? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.menonline.org

    Beyond Financial Nihilism

About

The latest research, policy, and commentary about the online lives of boys and men. A project of the American Institute for Boys and Men. www.menonline.org

You Might Also Like