Read Stand by Your Manhood Online
Authors: Peter Lloyd
Tags: #Reference, #Personal & Practical Guides, #Social Science, #Popular Culture, #Men's Studies
We hear this all the time: men are crude, mechanical and goal-driven, whereas women operate more lovingly – which we should try to emulate. But, hang on a minute, as Lady Gaga once astutely observed – aren’t we born this way?
It seems so. Whilst men and women have the same levels of oxytocin (the chemical produced during sex which brings people together and bonds them in intimacy), men have higher levels of testosterone and vasopressin, which are released after orgasm. When this happens it causes them to distance themselves from their partner, so whilst women want to cuddle and enjoy the afterglow, it’s because their oxytocin rush hasn’t been interrupted. Meanwhile, ours has. This isn’t good or bad, just different.
And different by intelligent design, too.
‘This idea of innate “goodness” in women and innate “baseness” in men is one of the most emotionally destructive feminist fairy tales,’ says Dr Tara J. Palmatier, a psychologist who specialises in male therapy.
‘Many of the men I work with complain their relationships lack emotional intimacy because their wives or girlfriends treat them like human dildos,’ she adds. ‘Men should just have sex however they want to as long as it’s with another consenting adult – just like women.’
After all, sex was an act of equality long before the Equality Act.
There’s a lot of snobbery around porn, but the taboo truth is that women enjoy two strangers fornicating in a badly lit studio just as much as we do. For exactly the same reason: it gets them off.
‘At sixteen I believed everything politicians like Claire Short were saying about porn – that it was degrading to women and was dangerous, but I soon realised their
anger was envy. I soon knew exploring my own sexuality was the answer, not thwarting men’s freedoms,’ says Dr Anna Arrowsmith, the UK’s first female porn director. She cut her teeth at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design – yes, the one Jarvis Cocker references in Pulp’s ‘Common People’ – before moving to LA, where she now lives with her husband.
‘Pornography is not the acting out of politics. It’s the acting out of imagination,’ she explains, trashing the suggestion that explicit material makes men sexually violent. Porn is a bit like professional boxing. A theorist might try and link it with street violence by arguing men see it on TV, then go out and assault someone, but we know boxing adheres to certain legal and cultural rules which render it different to everyday violence. It’s a sport. People can enjoy boxing as entertainment but still appreciate that it’s wrong to physically attack somebody. It’s the same with porn.
Good point. But isn’t it harmful to young women? Doesn’t it make them need to act like porn stars with their boyfriends when actually they might just crave closeness? ‘No! Research shows girls in Australia, America and the UK aren’t being sexually corrupted by porn as is often suggested – in fact, they’re increasingly waiting
longer to lose their virginity, having their first sexual experience with a steady partner and regularly using condoms.’
So, hang on, are we saying porn actually has virtues?
Yes. First of all, it keeps couples together. Men tend to have a higher sex drive than women, so porn allows them to sate this without affairs, pestering or paying for sex. Porn also democratises the body because there’s a market for anything. Half the industry is amateur, which shows all physical types. I often say to women who don’t like something about themselves – body hair, for example – to stick it in a search engine and add the word porn. They’ll find a host of sites which think it’s the most attractive thing about them.
It also pays the wages of countless tax-payers and helps people learn about the body in the absence of good sex education. Oh, and it’s the only industry I know were a woman’s period is a good reason to reschedule a shoot date.
Porn is great for both women and men but, more than anything, it’s a freedom of choice to be upheld.
This is particularly true with the state breathing down our necks, but the solution can simply be to see through the moral panic. The rule of thumb, or thumb and forefinger,
or complete surround grip, is that it only needs to be legal and please you.
Just don’t shake my hand if we ever meet.
Ever since the pill dropped in the ’60s, women have expected men to deliver orgasms on demand. But, in reality, loads of women struggle to climax even when they’re masturbating, so gentlemen, please, relax.
Sometimes, it’s them – not you.
‘For a variety of reasons, women have a much harder time taking responsibility for their own pleasure than men,’ says Vanessa Marin.
Many expect their partner to make them orgasm, even if they’ve never been able to make themselves orgasm, which creates a whole slew of problems.
As a sex therapist, I operate from the belief that we’re each responsible for our own orgasms. Yes, we should all be invested in ensuring our partner is having a good time, but it’s not the man’s responsibility to make sure they orgasm. This can be an unpopular opinion with some women, but it’s true.
Female orgasm tends to take much longer than male orgasm, and can be quite nuanced. If women explored their bodies and sexualities more, they would be able to learn what they needed to orgasm and would probably put less pressure on men to figure it all out.
My MailOnline nickname is Samantha Prick, as in ‘women hate me for being pretty’ Samantha Brick, because I’m often writing penis-related stories. So, to avoid repeating myself, I’m going to keep it short here – pardon the pun.
As the dedicated chapter already notes, there can be absolutely no intelligent study of penis size without a corresponding one about vaginas. If clever, board-certified researchers haven’t yet twigged that the two are critically linked when it comes to sexual satisfaction then, seriously, they’re in the wrong job.
Size matters – but only when there’s a mismatch. Even then, this is a preference, which means both partners are equally to credit/blame* (*delete as appropriate) for the friction of their frisson.
‘If a man says he prefers thin women, he’s accused of
being shallow and fat-shaming. If he states a preference for large breasts, he’s accused of objectifying women and worse,’ adds Dr Palmatier.
Yet, when women try to shame, humiliate and hurt men by belittling the size of his penis, it’s often a socially acceptable source of amusement. This is yet another double standard when it comes to the sexes. Some women prefer a larger penis, some women prefer an average size penis. Some prefer smaller than average. Most do not care. What matters is that they’re attracted to or love the man. Most women do not climax from vaginal penetration anyway. Therefore, it’s more important that the couple be able to communicate what techniques, pressure, clitoral stimulation, positions etc. are most likely to result in orgasm.
This is something Dr Beverly Whipple agrees with – and has been saying for years. ‘Size isn’t important, but position is,’ she says.
What counts is the angle. The positions that seem to stimulate women most inter-vaginally, because they hit on the Gräfenberg spot [the G-spot, to you and me], are: woman on top, rear entry with the penis going through the vaginal wall and, thirdly, the missionary position,
but with the man kneeling up and the woman’s legs over his shoulders.
It’s no wonder we go to strip bars: nobody talks there. Forget the semi-naked women; we go there for a bit of peace away from all the ear-bashing we get about them. Of which there’s a lot.
From an objector’s point of view, the argument is that they’re the bastard child of misogyny and commerce. Having once been invited to one of Peter Stringfellow’s venues, with – bizarrely – Rula Lenska, I could see evidence of neither. But still. If lap dancers themselves were protesting the existence of these places, then, fair enough, it would be a no-brainer – that would be slavery, which is slightly different. But these women are not bears in cages. We do not need Abraham Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation to roll up at the door.
Organisations like We Consent already represent people in the sex industry who exert their right to choose, politely telling others to mind their own damn business.
So perhaps the real, unspoken objection is that these women are crossing a feminist picket line. Ultimately,
it’s hard to say, but actress Lena Dunham recently said that part of being a feminist is giving other women the space to make choices you don’t necessarily agree with. Nicely put.
‘I’ve always been an enthusiastic supporter of strip clubs, which I view as pagan shrines for the worship of female sexual beauty and energy,’ adds Camille Paglia, no doubt causing a global axis tilt from the butterfly effect of a million men nodding – very suddenly – at once.
In 1994, I did a feature for
Penthouse
magazine where a woman reporter accompanied me to several New York venues of various socio-economic levels to demonstrate how sexist and false movie portrayals of them have been. Stripping is a legitimate genre of dance with an ancient history and should be respected as such. It’s the same with the men’s magazines. I support all legal softcore and hardcore pornography. It tells the primitive raw truth about sexual desire.
So there you go, it’s official: male sexuality, like female sexuality, is good as standard. One is no better than the other, both are equally capable – and open to misuse.
Now that’s sorted, let’s get back to what nature intended – without apology. It’s not making a stand
for sexism or mistreating women, but for the right to enjoy sex like consenting, law-abiding, shame-free adults should.
THERE ARE SOME GENIUS PUNS
out there: the bathroom decorator who calls his company Bonnie Tiler, the bakers trading as Bread Zeppelin and the Asian restaurant named Thai Tanic, which surely goes down well – boom, boom. Then there’s removal man Vanny Devito, the Tree Wise Men horticulturalists and American pancake diner I Feel Like Crepe, which are all good. Very good.
But none are better than The Fraud of the Rings for describing marriage, because – for men everywhere – that’s exactly what it is. What was once the best excuse for a knees-up is now the foreplay to a sexless relationship, a painful divorce and a morbidly obese legal bill.
Yes, OK, maybe that’s overstating it. There are still plenty of guys happy to take women up the aisle, as it were, but the facts speak for themselves: marriage stats across the West have nosedived in recent decades – a trend which shows no sign of slowing down. Adding to the quagmire, couples who do get hitched fail at a rate of 42 per cent, which – as Prince would say – is a sign o’ the times. In fact, matrimony isn’t just ailing, it’s dying out faster than the average iPhone battery, which is fast.
The explanation for this is surely a complex combination of decline in religion, increase in materialism and relaxed attitudes to tradition, right? Yes and no. These are all contributing factors. As is the fact women are frequently educated above men, but rarely marry ‘beneath’ them – whatever that means. But there’s also a more controlled, quietly anarchic reason for it all: the fact that, subconsciously or not, men are on a marriage strike. And it’s growing.
A 2011 study by the PEW research centre, the American equivalent of YouGov, found that fewer young men are willing to get tied down. On the flip side, the share
of young women aged eighteen to thirty-four who listed wedded bliss as a priority has risen by almost a tenth. In 1997 it was over a quarter, now it’s nudging 40 per cent. Yet, for men, the opposite is true. It dropped from 35 to 29 per cent.
In online forums this is referred to, rather unimaginatively, as ‘men going their own way’. It’s happening everywhere from Cork to Casablanca, with single blokes saying thanks but no thanks to the old ball and chain. This doesn’t happen with any great fanfare – they don’t put it on a T-shirt or tattoo it onto their foreheads. They simply step back and opt out, which is precisely why it’s so effective. It’s stealth.
Which begs the neon-lit question: why? And should we be joining them? I put this to American academic Dr Helen Smith, who wrote the eyebrow-raising
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream – and Why It Matters.
‘There are people out there who say men don’t marry because they’re immature or commitment-phobic,’ she explains over the phone from Knoxville, Tennessee, with her sexy, southern drawl. Think Jerry Hall but with intonation. ‘But they’re all wrong – men aren’t acting irresponsibly when they refuse to marry, they’re acting
rationally.
’
Married with a daughter, Smith is qualified to comment
in every sense. She earned a master’s degree from New York’s City University before relocating south and becoming a specialist in male social psychology, running a local clinic and lecturing at the University of Tennessee.
‘Look, I can say this because I’m a woman,’ she adds.
But the rewards for men in modern-day marriage and fatherhood are a lot less than they used to be, yet the cost and dangers are a lot higher. Who would want to sign up for that? Ultimately, these men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and, if it all goes wrong, their kids. They also appreciate now that single life is better than ever, so where’s the incentive? Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried, they’re being smart. They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with somebody who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.
Crikey, that all sounds a bit bleak.
Let’s look at the proof: in 2009 the Office for National Statistics released figures showing that marriage is at its lowest level since 1895. In England and Wales there were 286,634 ceremonies during 2011, which is almost a whopping 50 per cent freefall from 1972, when almost 480,285 couples tied the knot. Enter stage left: a slew of young
women looking for Mr Right and frequently being unable to find him.
Nowhere does this manifest more than in the world of online dating. Match-making sites have never been more prolific – and profitable – than they are today, with an estimated annual industry turnover of £2 billion. There’s Match, Guardian Soulmates, Plenty of Fish, Tinder, My Single Friend, E-Harmony, Lovestruck and Hello Cupid to name a few. But what do many of these sites have in common? Yep, more women actively looking for marriage in their profiles than men.
Clearly, something is amiss.
So, what gives? Well, the short answer is: us. We give. Everything. Or at least it seems that way. A quick glance at any high-profile divorce over the last few years shows it’s husbands, not wives, who get hit hardest in a separation. Agreed, we’re dealing in sweeping generalisations here, but it remains the rule, rather than the exception.
Check out these real-life adverts for remaining a bachelor: when British businessman Alan Miller wed his first wife Melissa in 2003, he thought it was forever. She immediately decided to give up work, including her £85,000 salary, to become what was dubbed a ‘Harvey Nichols wife’, which meant spending her time shopping, lunching and spending – an impressive lifestyle for someone who doesn’t earn a living. When they separated just two
years and nine months later, he was forced to pay her a £5 million divorce sum which included his £2.3 million home in Chelsea and a separate £2.7 million lump sum – despite the fact they had no children. That equates to more than £6,000 per day. Ker-ching!
He argued, rather brilliantly, that he would’ve been better off if he’d knocked her down in his car and had to pay compensation but the Court of Appeal said that by marrying her he’d given his wife ‘an expectation of a significantly better standard of living’ – something he must maintain to make her happy, at his expense. Forever. Because he’s a man.
Kenneth MacFarlane, one of the big boys at accounting firm Deloitte, suffered a similar fate. He had to give his ex-wife his luxury home and £250,000 every year for life because he worked full-time during their relationship. She even went back to court for a second bite of the cherry when he was later given a pay-rise. A ruling which makes Paul McCartney’s judgment seem almost fair. When the Beatles star married Heather Mills in 2002, the world winced at what was effectively a six-year, slow-motion car crash. Unsurprisingly, Mills quickly got pregnant and – when the inevitable divorce came through – got her hands on £24.3 million. Experts say he was lucky. If he hadn’t roped in family law guru Fiona Shackleton the figure could’ve been more like £200 million.
Love me do? Love me don’t, more like.
For all its pulling power, it seems the concept of marriage has – ironically – been adulterated by big-money pay-outs and, to quote Kanye West for a bit of gangster credibility, a generation of gold diggers. So, sorry, Beyoncé, it’s little wonder we won’t put a ring on it, even if we do like it. Besides, it’s not just ‘a’ ring, these days, but two. One for popping the question, the other for sealing the deal.
Forget any idea that this is about tradition or romance, it’s actually just good old-fashioned marketing.
Before the 1930s there was no such thing as buying an engagement ring for a future spouse. People got married because they wanted to, rather than because the bloke begged with a box on bended knee. This was only kick-started in 1938, when jewellery company De Beers began running ads which said ‘real’ men (read: ignore this and she’ll think you’re a dud) bought their fiancées expensive rings to prove their worth. In a media masterstroke, this set a behavioural code which – funnily enough – also generated a tonne of profit. Not least because they ruled – in a vulgar example of commercial profit-chasing – that the average ring should cost two months’ salary.
The laughable part? Years later, De Beers chairman himself, Nicky Oppenheimer, admitted that diamonds ‘are intrinsically worthless’ – which is surprisingly true.
The only reason they’re expensive to shoppers is because De Beers have a monopoly on diamond mining and up the price by restricting supply, hence marking up the retail price. In other words: it’s a great big fucking scam. Which is yet another reason to either a) stay away from marriage altogether and focus on having healthy relationships – kept healthy by the nagging reality that it could all end at any time – or b) buy your bling from Argos. For richer or poorer and all that.
Then again, even being economical isn’t enough. In 2011, a US appeals court in Georgia ordered a man to pay $50,000 to his one-time fiancée for calling off their wedding. Melissa Cooper sued Christopher Ned Kelley for fraud and breach of promise after their ten-year relationship ended. In a similar case, Florida woman RoseMary Shell successfully sued her ex-fiancé, Wayne Gibbs, for $150,000 after he dumped her in 2007. She argued that his promise of marital bliss was tantamount to a binding contract. Naturally, she won, despite the fact he’d already paid off $30,000 of
her
debts whilst they were together (and he only called off the wedding when he discovered she had lots more).
Christ, only in America – right?
Well, not quite. India is enjoying its own through-the-looking-glass approach to tying the knot. Currently, divorce can be filed as ‘no fault’ by either partner – but
only wives have the right to oppose it. They also automatically get half of the bloke’s property list – whether currently owned or due for inheritance – whilst her landlord portfolio remains off the table. Meanwhile, over in Australia, there’s a ‘Mistress Law’ whereby a married man’s assets can now readily be accessed by the other woman. In a breakthrough test case, the bit-on-the-side told press: ‘I gave him the best years of my life. He always told me he would look after me, then he left me. I had committed myself fully to him for all those years. So this is also about giving our relationship a validity.’
Er, forget validity. This is about punishment and female self-entitlement. Why couldn’t she look after herself like every other adult on the planet?
I put this radical theory to Suzanne Venker, journalist, author and professional feather-ruffler. Speaking to me from St Louis, she tells me in no uncertain terms that the problem is women wanting to have their cake and eat it. See, I told you she was controversial.
‘We messed with the old marriage structure and now it’s broken,’ she says
Back in the day, stay-at-home mothers got a financial reward in divorce settlements because child-rearing doesn’t pay cash, which was fair – that’s an option afforded to women by working husbands. It’s teamwork.
Now, we want total independence from men, but if we divorce one – even without having kids – we still expect to get alimony forever. We can’t have it both ways.
This, along with bridezillas and the prospect of endless domestic criticisms, is exactly why we’re saying ‘I don’t’ rather than ‘I do’. Men need marriage like a fish needs a bicycle.
‘Many women have been raised to think of men as the enemy,’ Venker adds:
It’s precisely this dynamic – women good, men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. After decades of browbeating, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault. The ‘rise’ of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off.
Maybe she has a point. In one way, the appeal of marriage is like old VHS tapes. We look at them via our childhood with a warm, nostalgic glow. Almost through a sepia-toned Instagram filter. But deep down we know the quality was always a bit shit – you’d be ten minutes into
The Goonies
(which you had to watch that night or face a fine) and be stuck manually adjusting the tracking,
which didn’t make a difference anyway. Yet people had faith in it because it was the best option they had. And big money fuelled the fire. Blockbuster was one of the biggest business models in its sector – it was a tent pole in home rental movie revenue. But suddenly, without warning, the bottom fell out of the market. Change happened. Ideas developed, thinking shifted. People wanted greater convenience. First, this came in the form of DVDs – something lighter, faster and more understated – which, at the risk of battering a metaphor to death, is what marriage experienced with registry offices. They were modernised, compact, less-is-more. Then, like blu-ray or special edition boxsets, they too became pimped, like eloping to Gretna Green or drive-thru chapels in Las Vegas.
Still, behind all the clever technology and shiny, new rebranding remained an ageing transaction. People were still asked to buy.
Eventually, like the free love philosophy of the ’60s, LoveFilm ditched that altogether, meaning that, with new technology, we didn’t even need to leave the house to get what we wanted (although I’m saying absolutely nothing about mail-order brides here). More recently, the once leading concept behind Blockbuster was boiled down to live streaming on Netflix, which created a game-changer when it simply allowed entertainment – read: pleasure – to be enjoyed on demand.
Today, people don’t just want this in relation to the small stuff, but across the board. Less restriction and more freedom. Fewer penalties, more value for money. They want a life that’s high definition, good quality and convenient, without endless, disproportionate financial penalties for putting their tape in somebody else’s machine.
Ironically, even in Hollywood, where all these dreams are bought and sold, marriage rarely ends well. Actor Robin Williams wed/divorced twice in good faith but – despite working solidly for decades – faced near-financial ruin after both separations cost him an estimated $30 million in settlements. In a bid to offset the damage, he ended up coming out of retirement at the age of sixtytwo to work full-time on TV series
The Crazy Ones,
but we all know how that ended. ‘Divorce is expensive. I used to joke they were going to call it “all the money”, but they changed it to “alimony”,’ he mused. ‘It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet.’