Stand by Your Manhood (14 page)

True. Both procedures remove functional tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals and forever damage the sexual response. And in most cultures where female circumcision is performed, male circumcision is also performed with equally dirty, blunt apparatus.

Bizarrely, whilst the intactivism movement does have support from both genders, there are countless women like Sands who want to keep it a feminist hot topic. When Lynne Featherstone MP – the Equalities Minister, FFS – waded into the FGM debate, she said: ‘It’s a practice that has been going on for 4,000 years and, without wishing to be crude about this, quite frankly if it was boys’ willies that were being cut off without anaesthetic it wouldn’t have lasted four minutes, let alone 4,000 years.’

Err, except it has – and still is.

Another charmer is
The Guardian
’s Tanya Gold. When the Council of Europe made a recommendation to ban the circumcision of girls
and
boys, she mused it was anti-Semitic and sexist, saying: in the ‘legislative warmth and kind ideals was the Jew bomb; the revolting juxtaposition of female genital mutilation, which is always torture, and often murder, with ritual male circumcision, which is neither.’

Er, sorry – get your facts straight. In September 2012, a two-week-old infant died at a Brooklyn hospital after contracting herpes through a circumcision ritual called metzitzah b’peh, which involves the bleeding foreskin coming into contact with the mouth of the mohel, who sucks it dry. In November 2012, Manchester Crown Court heard how a four-week-old boy bled to death after a DIY home circumcision went wrong. Nurse Grace Adeleye was paid £100 to carry out the procedure, using only scissors, forceps and olive oil, at the family home in Chadderton. Adeleye was later found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. Chillingly, her defence recounted that thousands of boys are routinely circumcised in this way in Nigeria, as if that’s somehow a mitigating circumstance.

Likewise, Californian baby Brayden Tyler Frazier died in 2013. The newborn child, who was only a few days old, suffered serious complications as a result of the procedure and died from his injuries on 8 March. Ironically, his death coincided with International Women’s Day, which is designed to effect positive change between the sexes. Oh, the irony.

Yet, as a nation, we still have our priorities all wrong. Shop mannequins are being made to look fatter so women don’t feel bad for eating three KitKat Chunkys during
The X Factor,
but millions of boys are still suffering the
indignity of having their dicks diced. What the hell is going on?

Perhaps the reason people are so mind-numbingly stupid when it comes to this issue is because the words we use to describe it have lost their shock value. Maybe our current vocabulary isn’t controversial enough; our arguments have become dulled and blunt with overuse – unlike the surgical knives used. They are no longer sufficiently serrated or hard-hitting to describe the grimness of it all. So what do we call it? Male genital mutilation? Son-slashing? Cock-crippling? Maybe words aren’t enough, full stop. Perhaps what people really need is to see raw images of raw penises on babies. Gruesome shots of exactly what happens when a boy is strapped down, has his perfectly fine and functioning foreskin clamped then cut, in an often unregulated practice.

One of the weakest pro-arguments people present is that young boys should ‘look like their dad’. But, hang on, how often do we see our father’s penis? It’s not like you go to a family party and distant relatives look down your trousers and say, ‘Ah, you’re the spitting image of your dad!’

Then there’s the hygiene excuse. The World Health Organization says circumcised boys help reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection by 60 per cent. But, last time I checked, baby boys weren’t having sex.
And when the time comes there’s always our friends at Durex. Besides, if circumcision prevented HIV so much, why is America still a nation with high transmission rates? In 2011, 49,273 people were diagnosed with HIV in the United States. In that same year, more than 32,000 people had full-blown AIDS.

WHICH CLEARLY MEANS CIRCUMCISION DOESN’T WORK AS A SAFE-SEX METHOD, YOU MORONS.

Besides, let me reiterate what any sane person already knows: rolling a foreskin back in the shower is
not
rocket science. Mother Nature is smart and knows exactly what she’s doing. Like an eyelid, the foreskin is a protective layer of skin the body actively needs.

In fact, it has a whopping sixteen functions, including: providing bacteriostatic action around the head, protecting the nerves to keep the penis sensitive during sex (where the foreskin also acts as a rolling device – otherwise thrusting would hurt more and feel a bit pinched), distributing natural lubricants, storing pheromones for releases on arousal – making us more attractive to our other halves on a chemical level – and acting as a sleeping bag for the shaft, keeping it safe and warm. (Intrepid explorer Ranulph Fiennes discovered this on one of his treks when it stopped him getting frostbite.)

It also has other surprising uses – it acts as a handy
grip to pull your penis out from your fly when you’re in a dash at the urinals, whilst one entrepreneurial drug dealer even hid his cocaine stash in there at customs.

Maybe part of the decision to allow circumcision is psychological. We see our kids as children, never potential sexual beings, so don’t bother to question how it may affect their future pleasures. This is understandable, but taking away a person’s choice on something so personal as genital integrity is just asking for trouble.

The appropriately named Catherine Hood, a counsellor from the Institute of Psychosexual Medicine, sees many men who are angry about having been circumcised as a boy. She explains that they experience feelings of invasion, self-loathing and shame. ‘The issues that men are angry about when they seek help are very individual,’ she says from her clinic.

One man who grabbed the industry by the balls – and squeezed – was William Stowell. Born and raised in New York, he now lives in Virginia where he works, funnily enough, as a tree surgeon. ‘I climb trees with a power saw, a rope, a saddle and a saw. I’m a third-generation cutter on my father’s side of the family,’ he enthuses.

‘What’s funny is that girls on dates vilify me for cutting down trees. The irony of this definitely hasn’t been lost on me,’ he laughs.

In 2001 he made history when he became the first man in the world to sue his hospital of birth for removing his foreskin without consent. ‘It was something I couldn’t
not
do. I was pretty pissed off because I’d been deprived of my natural body,’ he tells me, both eloquently and without the usual nervous energy which comes with men talking about their bodies. ‘It was intuitive. I can’t simplify it any more than to say: I had a whole penis, somebody cut part of it off, which left me with less of a penis. That’s not OK with me.’

To prove it, he fought hard and won a landmark settlement which was rumoured to have hit the $100,000 mark. At the time, he was in the military, where he served
in the Air Force, but he went on to become the poster boy for the anti-circumcision movement. His story went so viral that he ended up on
Good Morning America,
which – for the sake of us Brits – is the big time. He also appeared, fully clothed, in a couple of adult magazines like
Penthouse,
which, perhaps surprisingly, was the tipping point. At the same time, the Catholic Church started coming under fire for the molestation scandals and, being a Catholic hospital, they wanted no more drama and settled with a fat cheque.

‘People always go on about the welfare of children. Oh, it’s about the children, do it for the children, protect the children, they say – before slicing their son’s dick open. It’s a joke.’ When I call the NSPCC, Save the Children and Barnado’s to check this, I discover he’s right – despite what we know, none of them have a single policy to protect boys from genital cutting. Even now.

‘I didn’t keep most of the money from my lawsuit,’ William clarifies. ‘I set up a trust fund to help other men sue their doctors and hospitals, because it’s blatantly different treatment of genders. Girls are protected, boys are violated,’ he says.

Like thousands of other men across the world, William found some relief in foreskin restoration, which involves stretching out a new fold of skin, a long process which can take years. ‘It wasn’t easy. Whilst growing out the
skin there were times when the head wasn’t always covered – and that was terribly painful,’ he says.

When I ask him what these sensations are – what sex is like now with a foreskin, a foreskin which has about 20,000 compressed nerve endings, he pauses – then uses two adjectives: ‘luscious’ and ‘juicy’. We both pause, then collapse into laughter. ‘I’m fairly good with words, but there are times when words fail,’ he says. ‘All I know is I wouldn’t go back. I don’t care if some guy wants to castrate himself with a broken liquor bottle when he’s eighteen, I don’t give a damn – but it’s about choice. He should make that decision as an adult.’

Sadly, that doesn’t sit well with the other driving force behind the industry: money.

‘There are at least 1 million circumcisions which take place every year in the United States: that’s 3,000 per day, each of which comes at a price,’ adds Jonathon Conte.

Queen of TV, Oprah Winfrey, found herself in trouble when she endorsed a skin cream that included cells from discarded foreskins. TNS Essential Serum, made by Skin-Medica, uses foreskin fibroblast – a piece of human skin used as a culture to grow other skin or cells. She described the product, which sells for about £150 per ounce, as her ‘magic fountain of youth’.

Hordes of protestors picketed her outside TV studios nationwide, some with eloquent placards which read: ‘Circumcise Oprah! She’ll be “cleaner”’. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

‘It’s a huge multi-million-dollar industry, so there’s a lot of financial incentive to keep the circumcision train rolling,’ adds Conte. ‘There are many people who are making a lot of money when it happens, who would make no money if it didn’t. Forget human rights, it’s all about the mighty dollar.’

Which begs the question: is there a hidden financial reason why we’re encouraged to cut our sons? Is this just a cash-generator – straight from his pants? Are we lining the pockets of fat cats who treat our lads like a commodity? In short, yes. Which makes the whole process even more sinister. Not least because parents are supposed to protect their offspring, not serve them up on a platter.

When I broach this with William, he admits that – beyond everything – what his circumcision ultimately hurt was his relationship with his mother, who allowed it to happen.

In therapist-speak, this is probably referred to as the breakthrough. Because here William gets to the heart of the matter, offering perhaps the best ever reason not to circumcise your child.

Otherwise, not only are you letting Tony the Tiger’s creator affect his future sex life, which is just weird, but you’re also cutting more than human flesh. You’re
potentially severing the priceless bond with your perfect son.

Nothing is worth that.

THERE’S A CONSTANT NARRATIVE ABOUT
men in the modern world, mostly critical – and curated by everyone except us.

Fortunately, as we’re the ultimate authority on ourselves, it’s us – nobody else – who gets to have the final say on matters of masculinity.

So, as we’re long overdue a reality check, let’s do some conscious uncoupling from the everyday bullshit of being a bloke.

In short, don’t buy it. No, seriously – don’t pick up that tab! At a time when young women are solvent, self-sufficient and frequently out-earning their male counterparts (the Chartered Management Institute found that female managers in their twenties are now earning 2.1 per cent more than men of the same age) we should help them enjoy the fruits of their labour. Especially on dates, where the boundaries of a relationship are defined early.

This doesn’t have to be a romance-free divide of who had the biggest starter, but a mutually kind sharing of plates – as well as minds – is just plain polite.

Typically, social etiquette dictates that the ‘asker’ funds the first date, whilst the ‘ask-ee’ gets the second, so feel free to follow this blueprint – but do it in a coffee shop where everything’s a bit more low-key. Stop the naff, overstated gestures of Michelin-starred restaurants for a first date. You’re not Donald Trump and you don’t even know if she’s even worth it yet. She might order three
courses and a bottle of wine and then sit there – lobotomised – when the bill arrives.

Instead, take her for a caffeine hit somewhere original and be generous there. The gesture is the same, as is the level of respect for another person’s time, but the financial impact is not. It also suggests casual parity and looks a lot less desperate than booking the best table somewhere like the Chiltern Firehouse, which, BTW, is totally over now Bono’s been.

From here you’re free to upgrade accordingly because, by this point, you’ll know you’re paying for somebody who treats you (and your wallet) with a bit of decorum. After all, if she’s not a sex object, you’re not a success object. Everybody wins.

Naturally, plenty of women already go dutch. Plenty more settle the tab altogether. We like these women. A lot. We like them more when they allow us to treat them – and, likewise, when they spoil us. I just wish they’d be less discreet and a bit more consistent, because over the months it took me to write this book I observed hundreds of men financing dinners in fancy places, whilst their glamorous guests froze at the presentation of the credit card machine – even though, decorated with expensive handbags and bodies contorted into various post-surgical poses, they could clearly afford to cough up.

Besides, it wasn’t so long ago that opening doors,
offering seats and paying for dates was branded ‘benevolent sexism’ – which is seriously scraping the bottom of the hardship barrel. Personally, it made me think of Bart Simpson’s sage advice when he noted ‘you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t’.

So, quite simply, ditch the chivalry act and save such welcome efforts for your friends. You are
not
desperate.

That said, there are certainly some undercurrents of chivalry that are worth keeping. These are otherwise referred to as: ‘being nice’. Holding a door open just makes the minutiae of daily life a bit easier for everyone (apart from that awkward moment when there are loads in a row and you run out of ways to say thank you). Even Hulk Hogan, who could probably rip the thing off its hinges, would be grateful for somebody extending such basic courtesy, because it’s not really about whether he could muster the strength to hold it open. It’s just being decent.

If anything, the bigger issue is age, not sex. In parts of Asia, pensioners are revered. Here, they’re allowed to soil themselves whilst a ‘carer’ nicks £20 from their purse. So here’s an idea: chivalry ultimately means putting the other person first, even just for a second. So, as we can all do this regardless of our hormone group, let’s start by being nice to our elders and our youngsters first, then work our way inwards.

This way, everybody wins in order. Men and women together.