Thoughts on the Mankind Project Lawsuit

Many of you probably read the recent story about the attorney who sued his law firm, claiming his boss demanded that he attend the ManKind Project’s New Warrior Training Adventure, a weekend workshop for men, and penalized him when he refused.

I won’t comment on the merits of the suit, or the specifics of the workshop (I haven’t taken it). I think the press coverage, and what it says about our culture’s attitudes toward self-development and sexuality, raise much more interesting issues.

This Is Headline News?

Predictably, reporters have focused on what they see as the most salacious part of the weekend — an exercise where the men sit naked in a circle, pass around a wooden phallus, and talk about an episode from their sexual histories.

Okay, without even getting into the purpose of this exercise, let’s take a step back and notice exactly what the media is riled up about: men, without clothes on, touching and exchanging a wooden representation of part of the male anatomy.

A Reality Check

Let’s start with the object. Would anyone be hot under the collar if it were a wooden hand or foot? Maybe outsiders would think this was odd, but it wouldn’t be national news. The so-called “problem” results from the fact that the object is a wooden penis.

Now, some people may feel instinctively uncomfortable when they imagine this object, but is there any clear reason why passing it around is immoral or harmful?

After all, I haven’t exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature, but as far as I know, there’s no evidence that touching a wooden penis ever maimed or killed anyone — unlike many things men do more often, such as driving cars and playing football.

What about the nudity? Again, thinking about this creates discomfort for many people. However, like many stories about the lawsuit have (shockingly) admitted, men get naked in front of each other in locker rooms all the time.

Finally, how about describing a sexual episode from the past? Men do this frequently (often with liberal embellishment) over a beer — why isn’t it okay in the context of this exercise?

A Weird Paradox

At this point, it may seem like I’m playing dumb. It should be obvious to me what the problem is, right? The ritual is about sex! The penis is a sexual organ! People usually get naked together when they’re about to have sex!

But again, so what? Are genitals wrong? Is sex wrong? Is sex between men (which the exercise didn’t involve) wrong? Most people I know -- though, admittedly, I'm in a very liberal part of the U.S. -- would say “no” on all counts.

Here’s more food for thought. Suppose a group of homosexual men decided to go on a wilderness retreat, during which they took off their clothes and had sex with each other. Would ABC News be all over this story? Of course not. But somehow, this ritual -- which contains no sex at all -- is seen as scandalous.

Sexuality Without The Snark?

This is why I think the real “problem” with this exercise is that it involves talking about, and exploring, men’s relationship to sex, without actually engaging in the act, or cracking “dirty jokes” about it. In other words, it’s sober, emotionally open discussions of sex that seem to be taboo in our society, not the sex act itself.

This gets me thinking: Wouldn’t it be nice if, say, parents in our society could have sober, emotionally open discussions of sexuality with their children? If they could introduce their kids to the subject without a lot of shaming, hesitation and nervous laughter? If their children didn't have to just figure it out all by themselves?

I imagine this would help create a less sexually neurotic and shame-ridden culture than the one we live in today, and I suspect the purpose of this exercise is to do just that: to introduce men — and, by extension, the culture — to a healthier, and less crazy-making, way of relating to sexuality.