Whether or not they are aware, practitioners who work around young men’s sexual health issues are encumbered by a theoretical debate which lies at the root of all health work with men: do we attempt to challenge and change men in order for them to reconsider the masculine behaviours which impact upon their heath - or do we work with men ‘as they are’ and make use of male cultures to address men’s health behaviours? Pinks and blues? A feminist and sociology inspired ‘ critical studies on men camp’ and a social marketing, public health based ‘men’s health studies’ camp? Take your pick.

In The Red Knob bunker, surrounded as we are by the arcane research literature of both sides of the argument, and several decades worth of experience between the Knobsters, we happen to think it should be a bit of both - that practitioners need to have a flexible base of practice in order to address needs. What is problematic is that hegemony of practice guidance on work with young men currently lies with the feminist inspired camp that seeks to challenge and change men, to enable men to reconsider aspects of their masculinity. ( At this point it’s worth stating that we have nothing against feminism - indeed we recommend  feminist approaches - where appropriate.) This pioneering guidance was produced around 10 years ago and has provided the basis for work with young men since then ( if you’ve seen it that is… which is another issue…)

This is great where it works - and it does work - but not with all young men. Erudite chaps such as Simon Forrest have written that this may well be because of the lack of skills of some practitioners  - which may well be the case, and addressing that is another blog posting and a whole lot more, but there may well be other factors at work which the theoretical basis of current guidance, sociology and Connell’s ‘masculinities’ does not address - because it is not recognised in sociologist and feminist  literature except in terms of criticism and disagreement. The science is never settled – or at least not in this instance. A ‘factor’ which is criticised by sociologists is that of an evolutionary psychological basis for some of men’s behaviours - an anathema in sociological and feminist terms (McCaughey’s Caveman Mystique provides a good example of this sort of reprobation – for a response take a look at Buss’s The Evolution of Desire).

Whilst this is all grist to the mill in terms of academic argument it is not helpful to practitioners. Let’s say it again - practitioners require a flexible base of practice! To address the ‘how’ we work with young men – we need to know the ‘why’ of why they act as they do. The research points to both sociological and cultural factors, and evolutionary psychological/biological factors as having an influence on men’s health behaviours; this is a concern for sociologists and some schools of feminist thought  - the 2007 Sociology paper  by Jackson and Rees, The Appalling Appeal of Nature: The Popular Influence of Evolutionary Psychology as a Problem for Sociology provides evidence of this stance – a stance against “simplified evolutionary accounts of human nature”. Thus the argument continues with two valid areas of research at variance – and the impact on men’s health is that in a UK context practitioners may( if at all)  only be aware of one side of the debate – that of the sociology side, and hence practice driven by this – and not that of an equally valid field of research – and its potential for practice. (And as for Myers Briggs Type Indicator psychometric tests, extraversion and introversion and relevance to male communication and interaction with others (participation and discussion?)…but let’s not get go off at too many vague tangents. ) Some of this may well be political – a perceived ‘left pole’ occupied by sociology (it’s from the left so it must be right…) and a ‘right pole’ occupied by nasty evolutionary psychologists who just can’t wait to experiment and administer all sorts of medication to sort out society’s ills. Both are simplistic arguments. We need to take the politics out of this – it’s about addressing real health needs not academic pogroms!

If some of men’s behaviours are due to their evolutionary psychology/biology it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t address those behaviours that are detrimental to health – not a bit of it! Indeed some of this may well buttress  sociological research on ‘masculinities’. What it means is that we need to reconsider how we work with young men, and how we apply research from different fields of research to best address men’s health needs. However, the way in which we address those needs has to be via a social marketing approach that is inclusive of different theories,  makes use of a wider base of the sociological tradition, and recognises the concept of authenticity as well as masculinity.

For those young men who inhabit entrenched masculine cultures, and for whom there is a credibility cost in engaging with approaches based on current practice guidance that seeks to challenge and change their masculinity ( ie whether from our own ethical stance we approve or not, that they’re comfortable with their masculinity and the masculine cultural group they inhabit and are resistant to change) then there may need to be – for some academics and people who write the practice guidance – an uncomfortable reconsideration of practice. That in instances where there are barriers to engagement with ‘entrenched masculinities’ we may need to utilise aspects of masculine culture to work within those cultures to affect change – not use approaches based upon current guidance that in such instances impose barriers to change.

There are examples of work that uses culture to engage with masculine cultural groups – in work with cultures of gay men Terrence Higgins Trust have made use of aspects of gay culture to address health issues, for example The Bottom Line, Below the Belt, and The Manual as visual examples – yet despite a depth of heterosexual male cultures there is little evidence of this sort of approach in sexual health work with heterosexual men – although there is evidence in other fields of practice – for example mental health ( CALM   - although not exclusive to heterosexual men) and in substance use work .

The Red Knob itself provides an example of targeted work with one masculine cultural group – a group that inhabits a subculture with recognisable codes traits and idioms – an authentic subculture; the point is it’s targeted at that group – it’s not aimed at all young men and it won’t work with all young men – but the approach we have developed works with some; others – young men who inhabit other cultural or subcultural groups, and some practitioners, academics and the architects of guidance may well not approve – but it’s not meant for them!

The Red Knob is based upon a social marketing approach. Social marketing is not a theory in itself – merely it provides a framework on which different theories can be hung to create an intervention which in terms of work with young men is most likely to succeed with a targeted masculine cultural group. How did we arrive at a decision to use the approach we use with the Red Knob? We used a simple model developed by a social marketing consultant at  the Central Office of Strategic Information  ( you can view it on the website if you browse through…). We define our approach as a social marketing base of practice.

What is interesting is that whilst much public health and health improvement work has embraced a social marketing methodology open to many theoretical approaches, guidance on practice work with young men has continued to plough a furrow based upon one theory – sociology based masculinities. Things may change. The architects of the previous guidance are currently holding four workshops  - in London, Bristol, Manchester and York, to explore a revision of the guidance on work with young men. May change. It may be that we are presented with examples of ‘what works’ based upon the same old, same old. And if so, we’ll have to try it and see – we cannot be dismissive of an approach that works with a lot of young men – the Knobsters use it themselves. However, there may well be an opportunity lost for another decade – if the architects of guidance fail or refuse to recognise why we need a broader base of the sciences to provide the ‘why’ that drives the ‘how’

The Knobsters have no gripe about turning off the social gender conditioning – of course we must challenge ‘the givens’ where appropriate –but we need balance and flexibility; for all those young men who are happy to talk about issues,  there will also be those who do not – possibly because of the cultures they inhabit and engagement around issues or that engaging with statutory services themselves are problematic – or for others that their psychology, their personality inhibits them from doing so; there is no acknowledgement within current guidance that some young men do not wish to talk about issues – even if we might want them to; we are failing sections of the young male populace if we fail to explore other approaches

This is not a challenge to sociology and feminist inspired academia and practice, neither is it a challenge to a ‘men’s health studies camp’ that recognises the value of evolutionary psychology and biology; this is a challenge for all involved in health work with men – a requirement for a reciprocal and integrated practice that acknowledges a wider base of theory in academia, and one which acknowledges a broader base in the sociological tradition. We can challenge and change – but sometimes guys we need to look beyond our own confines. Young men deserve nothing less.

Of the 170 listed delegates, 26 were men and at least 9 of them, from their job titles, worked in the criminal justice system. The only man to take the stage was an actor playing a perpetrator of DV.  We were reminded of the well-known statistics that 2 women die every week at the hands of partners or ex-partners, that 1 in 4 women will experience DV in their lifetimes. That made the odds pretty good that a fair proportion of the predominantly female audience will have been ‘victims’ at some point already – either directly or as child witnesses when they were growing up.

There was a drama piece in the afternoon that portrayed the gradual increase of severity of domestic abuse from subtle put-downs right through to rape, all with a puppet child watching in silence. Very powerful stuff.

About half way through the scene, there was a cut-back in time to the man in the piece being bullied at school, beaten up, humiliated, not picked for teams, possessions stolen, curled up on the floor being made to say he was a stupid baby who wets his pants. About as far away as you can get from the idea of what a man should be.

I am not suggesting, in any way, that that could possibly excuse what he then did.  However, it occurred to me that there is much truth in the old adage that we criticise in others the very things we don’t like about ourselves. It occurred to me that this is not actually about ‘gender’ violence – it is ‘the-idea-of-gender’ violence. Let me explain – in the morning we heard several speakers talking about recent research into violence in teenage relationships. In relationships where it occurred, there was a correspondingly much higher acceptance of old school gender role stereotyping – how boys and men should be, how girls and women should be. Surely this is a pattern we are foolish to ignore.

Incidentally, three of the women speakers managed to slip in their own self-denigration into their presentations – one said – ‘the ladies in the audience will understand that I have achieved my first challenge of the day – getting to the podium without falling over’ – another was introduced with a fantastic resume of all her fabulous research and publications. Her first line to us was,’ Gosh!  That makes me sound terribly important – I’m really not’ and the third equated the anger and frustration that some young people feel as ‘my worst day of PMT’. How powerful are our notions of ‘how women should be’ that expert speakers on DV can exhibit traits, in their very presentations, that would indicate vulnerability to abuse themselves. To apologise for themselves, to minimise their achievements, to assume they will make a mistake, to equate any emotional disturbance to ‘hormonal issues’. I found myself dwelling on that for much of the rest of the day.

Lat week on the sexual health training I run, my colleagues did an exercise with a group of adults who all work with children and young people. Of 12 delegates, 2 were men.  My usual proportion is about 80:20. They were doing a piece of work on gender sensitive approaches to the work we do and were asked to respond to a series of statements by just writing comments on headed flip-chart sheets. (Usual training fare, really) The statements included, ‘the best / worst thing about being a boy is…’,’the  best / worst thing about being a girl is….’. I would have struggled to facilitate that session myself, I think, as the clichés came thick and fast. It seems that the best things about being a ‘boy’ are the absence of the perceived bad things about being a woman – you know, having to give birth, have periods, shave your legs, having to shop for shoes and hand-bags. I’ve done this exercise myself many times and it never ceases to amaze me how I only have to scratch the surface to release a tirade of bile from women and leave any men in the room struggling to say something that might be acceptable. Try it yourself with a group of colleagues and see what happens if you don’t believe me.

Going back to our drama piece at the conference…it occurred to me that this man was full of self-loathing and hatred. He instructed his son to ‘never let anyone see that you’re weak’. He created situations which would make his wife feel and behave like he’d felt and then he could rage at her and abuse her for her stupidity, infidelity, weakness etc etc. At the end of the piece, the audience first asked the female actor if she was OK. As an afterthought or out of politeness, it seemed, they then asked the male actor. During the piece there were times when he would come to the audience and ask for a response to him, in role. Almost to a person, they were angry, tried reasoning, told him to think about how his wife was feeling, mocked him, made it very clear that he was a very unlike-able person. He already knew that. I kept quiet, until he was finding excuses for having ‘been a bit rough’ with her in bed the previous night. ‘Well she gets me all hot and horny and then goes cold on me– what am I supposed to do?’ I suggested he could have a wank  - which raised a laugh, predictably.

I was left at the end of today feeling like the world of professional work around DV is still rooted in the over-simple premise that women are victims and men are bastards. A basic dichotomy. Although we also know that men can be ‘victims’ and women perpetrators, it is relatively ‘small fry’ and the perception of a women’s ability to harm a man is that it just isn’t in the same league. And ‘all men are bastards’ – in relation to young people‘s relationships there seems to be more room for accepting a need to explore where those poor gender perceptions come from and help young people work them through so future relationships can be healthier. But in adult relationships it seems to be about safety of women and children, criminal justice, injunctions and refuges. Where is the line? When do we stop acknowledging that the perpetrators may have been damaged people too? When do we stop having an empathic response to them? Because as hard as it is, as nauseating and horrifying as we might find the violence inflicted by men against women, we will never eradicate it if we stay in ‘gender-wars’ mode. This is about an IDEA of women and an IDEA of men that must be broken down and to which we are ALL victim, men as well as women.

I listen to the radio on my way to work. This morning I listened to Tom Jones singing ‘Delilah’ with new ears. Surely this is the soundtrack to DV. A man, hurt and humiliated by his woman’s infidelity, stalks her, waits until she is alone, knocks on her door and then, when she laughs at him, he stabs her! Then he begs her forgiveness saying ‘I just couldn’t take any more’ – suggesting, of course, that she had brought this all on herself. Apparently written to reflect the story of ‘Samson and Delilah’ (that’s another rant for another day!) we all sing along quite merrily yet I wonder if we really acknowledge what we’re singing about. Come on people! Wake up and smell the skinny-latte!!

Some years ago, I heard about a trainer who bravely  introduced an exercise on a youth worker training programme, with one group looking at the question ‘what does it mean to be young’ and another group looking at ‘what does it mean to be a man’. This was taken straight out of a popular published and recommended guide to developing boys and young men’s work in youth services. We’ve all used it ( no prizes for guessing)  - and the exercise. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t…but it’s meant to make a point, however…The ubiquitous flip-chart sheets were dutifully labelled ‘young’ and ‘man’, the group divided into two smaller groups and fat coloured pens predictably distributed. The idea was that they’d come back and ‘compare and contrast’ the answers and magically notice how the things that define ‘young’ and ‘man’ are so very different that the group would instantly become empathic and understanding of this crucial dichotomy affecting the young men using their services. That’s the theory.

And what actually happened?  The two men in the group (out of about a dozen women - this was a training event for part-time youth workers after all!!) found themselves unable to answer the second question - they were utterly lost when asked to define what it was to be a man. And the women wrote things like ‘bastard’ and ’selfish slob’ and proceeded to swap stories about their acrimonious divorces. The trainer changed tack and challenged the group to acknowledge and consider how these attitudes were likely to impact on their practice but the unprovoked aggression of the women had, by this time,  put the men on the defensive and the workshop dissolved into accusation and counter-accusation.

I hasten to add that this was taken to the manager and was followed up with the persons involved and the trainer is now much more experienced and confident. Nothing like learning on the job. That exercise could be used as an example of what NOT to do on training about working with boys and young men. It is, however, a response that I continue to see in my own practice- albeit in a less vociferous form than that example. In experienced hands it can be used to make a valid point, but in less experienced ones  - well, you’ve read the above. Just last year I had a training resource defaced with permanent marker - it was an exercise about developmental stages in children and one of the statement cards read ‘ability to multi-task’ under which someone had written ‘WOMEN ONLY!!’ I had to point out to the group that this is a recognised HUMAN ability and is not gender specific. I frequently hear comments from women generalising about men’s undesirable traits of behaviour or attitude even after we have made group agreements where delegates have agreed to ‘not judge each other and respect the diversity within the group’. I am curious about what fuels this undercurrent of distrust  (verging on a rampant misandry that would not be tolerated  in terms of attitudes to women - or around gay men’s issues )  - and quite how much influence it has on practice.

This needs some serious attention as a contributing factor in the very real gender issue that faces us in the provision of sexual health education and clinical services. Serious attention. Anyone out there want to fund some proper research?

RCN Sexual Health Conference 2009

Last year’s conference saw Kathy French talk about the invisibility of young men in teenage pregnancy discourses - a situation which - now let’s be honest, hasn’t really changed. We do need to keep raising the profile of this - which the low key commando unit that is The Red Knob strives to do…well, we try our best, given the paucity of funding for this work - we did start off in a converted coal bunker you know!  The good news is, that whilst the folk at The Knob rail valiantly on in their tirade against the dearth of sexual health promotion work that deals with young men ‘as they are’, the mandarins at Brook appear to have picked up the penny that they’d dropped a while ago and decided to take another look at work with young men - including the possibility of a literature review with those iron men ( you’ve gotta be tough to do this work) at Working with Men. Information here:

Brook research - boys and young men

We can only applaud this - but chaps, pleeeeease can we acknowledge that sometimes that however ethically uncomfortable it might be for all of us, and as much as we may not personally like it, that some young men do inhabit authentic cultures  - that are real to them -  and that sometimes current guidance doesn’t work? That we need to be a bit more realistic about ‘what works’ in order to deliver our messages? Possibly too uncomfortable a price to pay for some professionals? The teenage pregnancy strategy is a decade old - young men haven’t gone away, yet how much focus on them is there really? Young men deserve more than this. C’mon!

The light was green and flashing - things appeared to be fine, so I pulled my card out and slipped it gently inside the device. I’d done this many times before. Lightly fingering the machine’s digit pad, and taking care to protect my identity and safeguard my cash, this was easy - afterall nothing could possibly go wrong. Or so I thought. Things moved rapidly; before I could punch my PIN into the silver machine… it switched off, swallowing my debit card. I was in a deep fix.

This was confusing. Urgently, I fingered the machine’s keypad, again and again, pressing error, cancel, return card. Aware that this was taking up time, I looked into the machine’s card slot - the card might be lodged in there - but no. My card had been taken. My identity, my life, my money, my weekend in The Smoke. Gone. Damnation! I rushed into the bank and informed the cashier that the machine was faulty, asking him to return my debit card. “No” he intoned. “Your card will be destroyed. It’s the law”, he continued…Dread gripped me.  “Where’s your manager?” I demanded.

The manager appeared, reiterating what the cashier had said. I was in no mood for messing around. “Let me get this right. It’s the law that my card gets destroyed - because of your faulty device. Where does it state that on the machine outside?” adding “it’s the longest Bank Holiday of the year, and I’m going away. I need my card”. The manager, probably realising he was dealing with no mean customer, and no doubt wanting me out of the bank, said if I could get a representative from my own bank across the street to come into their bank, then they would retrieve my card and pass it to them, to pass to me. I had no choice but to accept, and backed out of the building.

The situation required haste. I ran to my bank and explained the problem. It was now 16.56 on Maundy Thursday and they were about to close. I stated my case. “Please help  - the ATM machine at Barclays is faulty and has swallowed my card; can a representative please go across the road and help me retrieve my card?”…Gimlet eyes and a cracked voice confronted me.  “No… Your card will be destroyed. It’s the law…” Dread fixed me again.  “You will have a replacement card within 14 days”. Yours truly confronts ignorance and stupidity at every turn. “ESAD” I responded. “Close my account now; if you can’t help me as it’s the Bank Holiday, I’ll take out all of my cash - I’ll close the account.” They were out on their back feet. “Oh you can’t do that  - you have to ring this number to close your account”. Which I did - and received £50.00 not to close my account.

Now what in the world has this to do with STIs you ask? Well, from this detective’s out-of-the-box perspective, quite a lot. Think about it. The ATM machine was defective, probably carrying a viral load on its software. This baby put it about just a little too much - and no protection was offered to the customer, or even discussed, as it managed to indiscriminately swallow another 30 cards. That’s a lot of people paying the price for a lack of protection. However, Barclays have not made a direct apology, although they did say sorry to my partner. That’s not enough - after the event - the damage, a lack of trust is the result; maybe next time I’ll be more careful where I put my faith.  You pays yer money, yer takes yer choice. Etc.

Then we have their attitude to the problem, which bears a resemblance to the attitude of the authoritarian mandarins of guidance on sexual health promotion work. “No. You can’t do that. It’s the law. We wrote it and you’ll damn well keep in line and do as we say. Any divergence, any questioning, and we’ll point the finger at YOU.”  The condemned man, huh. Well, “ESAD” I say. Whose law? Where does it say that, and whom is the law protecting? Those who need it - or those who benefit from it? I got fifty quid and a nasty little rash. I won’t be slipping my card so indiscriminately into ATM machines in the future, will stay monogamous, and remain faithful to my black steed.

Be seein’ you. The Dick.

Then I reached inside a Snide bush

And the next thing that I knew,

I felt my hand touch someone!

And I’ll bet that you know who.

And for those people familiar with Dr Seuss’s wonderful book -The Sneetches, you may also recall another story within that weighty tome entitled ‘What was I scared of?’ - a cautionary tale of meeting with a pair of ( American style) animated but empty lime-green pants via a Snide bush ( don’t think you’ll find this in Bean’s Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles ). At least that’s one interpretation. Now, it’s been pointed out that the previous posting is more than a little snide - having a dig at the good folk at Brook and their glorious leader - below the belt, unwarranted, and very unfair. Possibly. The reality is that there isn’t enough of Brook to go round - and actually we do like their glorious leader, although admittedly we do have a funny way of showing it. As for the Brits of sexual health - yes, we should be celebrating good practice - but the question is - is it good practice? Great if it is. Or - are we perpetuating further versions of the same old, same old. A slap on the back for building a prize sandcastle as the tide rises around us.

One of the founding reasons for the existence of the Proudhon inspired anarcho-syndicate ( but hey, we’re really apolitical and a limited company to boot) that is The Red Knob was to agitate and raise the profile of the paucity of work around young men’s sexual health. We can be overjoyed at the work of the glorious leader, fpa, or  the pioneering blokes at Working With Men - but is it enough? The people mentioned would possibly agree that it is not. However, it becomes problematic when the same old, same old is hauled out at award ceremonies and  put into practice guidance - especially when it is driven by one idealogy that is either not cogniscent of or disregards evidence-based practice from other fields - ie our oft-trotted-out-tale of sociology/feminist inspired work around recasting masculinity ( and heaven knows that some men do indeed require a different mould) that has become the unquestioned de rigueur practice guidance that workers at the sharp-end are told ‘what works’ - only it doesn’t always. But - times change.

A great deal of work around young men’s sexual health was carried out during the earlier part of this decade - driven by an agenda around reducing teenage pregnancies. The people at the cutting edge of this work - and in many ways who still are, gave us our practice guidance on work with men - with young men. But the practice guidance has become moribund and we’re all becalmed in an accepted state of the doldrums - which no one bothers to question. Yes - undoubtably much of the guidance does work - but it doesn’t work with all young men - those so-called hard-to-reach masculinities, who really aren’t that hard-to-reach at all - it’s just that we’re not using the right approach - and this is where things become problematic for current guidance.

Current practice guidance on sexual health work with young men is based upon feminist thought around recasting masculinity - and this is fine where it works - but it is problematic when it encounters entrenched masculine cultures. The credibility cost for young men involved in those entrenched masculine cultures around engaging in a dialogue around their masculinty, and sexual health, becomes too high - and creates a barrier to engagement. Hence we need to bring onboard approaches that are sensitive to the masculine cultures that they inhabit - hence the work of The Red Knob.  The practice guidance on this work needs to be updated and rewritten. However, this can only be done if  the arbiters of young men’s sexual health are prepared to accept a real ‘what works’ approach - that sometimes in order to convey health information to young men in a credible way - that is acceptable and accessible to them, we need to make use of approaches that make use of the language, the codes, and traits of masculine cultures -  however uncomfortable that may make the proponents of feminist approaches  feel  - in order to address immediate health concerns. That doesn’t mean to say that efforts to recast some elements of masculinty should be abandoned - not at all - there is a need for feminist based work and thought to remain embedded within this work - not only around sexual health, but other issues such as domestic violence - but in order to address immediate health concerns the sociology-based camp of men’s health work  - ie the people who are behind current guidance - need to recognise that sometimes the approaches they advocate don’t always work - that we sometimes do need to work within cultures to affect change - not batter them from the outside with a dialogue that may as well be Ukranian.

 This really is a plea - let’s rewrite the guidance on this  - so that the work we deliver with young men is less one-size-fits-all prescriptive,  based upon one ideology and is open to all approaches that work. Social marketing eh. Nestor Makhno , would have advocated for direct action - but we’re not quite there yet ( although there’s a gentleman in Cerne Abbas that’s begging for it) . Beyond the Snide bush - if  Sneetches, an unnamed small, furry, yellow creature, and a pair of lime-green pants can kiss and make up and get on with it - then why can’t we?

Best before ‘84? The title of a compilation of Greatest Hits by that popular anarcho-wedding band CRASS? Or perhaps an inference to the 5 Year Plan instigated by the planners in the Red Knob Coal Bunker (now occupied by forces unknown since RK HQ had to move house) . After all, we did begin on our quest as Public Image Limited company no 5308942 in December 2004 - and well, it’s only a year or less to go…are we giving something away? But Reg Varney’s Inspector mate and Co are still driving the buses and  calling the shots at SHINEY Towers oop North and the other centres of sexual health in Londinium  - and hey Reg’s mate is even appearing at the Brook Annual Sexual Health awards on 5th March - they’ve even invited Polly Toynbee…what a wonderful luvvy do-dah-day ; don’t-ya-know this is Sexual Health’s version of The Brits - or even The Oscars…a self-congratulatory (s)pat-on-the-back for the luvvies involved in the business that is Sexual Health UK…it’s going sooooo well - or so the speech writers will say. Let’s not spoil a good thing afterall. All that glamour, glitz and prizes…but what about the disenfanchised shadowy blokes and blokettes  lurking under the arches- can’t quite shoo them away with the rest of the unwanted trash can you? Eh? Still, we don’t want to spoil the party yet…F4J and Direct Action huh. As if…So much money, so many fine, fine words, so what’s happening? Same old, same old as far as we can see - on a clear day…

And dwelling  on unattainable horizons, Onkel Reg’s Inspector - what’s the latest then on the TP figures eh? Social engineering managed to turn around the unstoppable tanker Teenage Pregnancy that Queenie shattered her Champagne bottle on then - or are we just sailing off into the sunset with ne’er-a-care in the world? Guess the  cash is in the bank - or, buzzword ‘credit crunch’ considered, it was the last time you looked, eh ’spec?  Cosy eh - as in lifestyle maintenance strategist cosy. ‘ Do they owe us a living ?’ Of course you do - but anything beyond the narrow periscope of the caramilla  surounding you and their prescribed doctrines is unlikely to get a look in…but hey, hey, we’re The Red Knob, we’re here to make a point - and we’re not going to go away - just yet.  Cor blimey luv them punk rockers were a right lot we’ren’t um.  Be seeing you guv’nor.

Now, taking yer heterosexuals - in popular parlance that’s those blokes who only shag females and females who shag blokes (remember them? For those people who work around sexuality issues, it sometimes seems to be forgotten that ‘straight’ is a sexuality too… OK right on? Or perhaps it’s not …) there’s a diversity of sexual practice going on that’s broader than a quick dip of the wick. I’m not big on Japanese rope bondage; Shibari? It’s all Origami to me - but hey, I accept that some people are. Whatever melts yer butter. That practice beloved of the Ancient Greeks, anal sex is something that a few years ago was illegal between men and women, but OK for guys of a certain age and bent - which pardoning the intentional pun as my name’s not Harry Wales and I don’t speak either Polari or retrosexual, is interesting in that bum sex and the associated slang of ‘fudge packing’, ‘chocolate speedway rider’ ad infinitum were once terms of reprobation cast at homosexuals, but have now entered the language as colloquial terms of endearment by heterosexual men who now clamour for a medal of approval from their pals if they manage to experience what that risque comedian Frank Skinner once likened to entering a small experimental recording chamber rather than entry to the main auditorium. ‘Pop!’ So it goes…H’mmm…

Popular culture changes - sexual culture changes - so do practices, acceptance of practice, and language. Dogging - now where did that evolve, huh? So…bum sex may now be considered  a ‘must do’ on the list of experiences for some young heterosexual men out to prove their masculinity. How times change etc. Now, getting to the final point- gay men - and we won’t enter into etymology, the use of the word ‘gay’ - how language changes and the ownership - or not, of language (we’ll leave that one to Chris Moyles and Friedrich Nietzsche for the time being - labels aren’t helpful - there’s a broad spectrum of human sexuality - labels categorise, and who wants to be defined by a label? Don’t ask me, I’m just Private Dick, a mouthpiece of The Red Knob. Identities huh!), but talking of entering, whether it’s squeezing into a small auditorium with a tight entrance or a vast orchestral chamber that shouts hallelujah atcha’, one of the things we should consider enlightening heterosexual young men about is the use of lube and gel-charging with condoms. After all it’s common practice amongst gay men who practice safer sex, that a blob of lube inside a condom, as well as outside it helps to make things go just a little easier (and before viewers write in to complain - yes we are quite aware that not all gay men practice or enjoy anal sex…) and adds to the pleasure experience, so why don’t we do it with straight guys? Don’t keep it a secret chaps - spread the word and share yer tips.

In my alter-ego as a Yoof offendin’ worker, gel-charging is something that I talk about with the young men I work with; there’s too much negativity around sex - ‘don’t do this or the scary monster will gobble you up’ etc; it works for some, but not for others. Just like sex then. A multi-faceted approach - or a hall of smoke and mirrors if that’s yer bag. Perhaps if we overcame our literally anal British attitude to all things ‘sex’ we’d be able to discuss enhancing our sex lives as part of a discussion around safer and pleasurable sex - ie the warmth, moisture and pressure argument - as in what don’t you get with a condom? Moisture - and a bit of gel inside a condom will provide that - and make things a bit more exciting …and a condom will grip the base of your dick making it more likely that it’ll stay erect if you’re feeling a bit nervous, can’t maintain an erection or it feels like you’re probing the 7th dimension or visiting Dr Who’s house - or why not try a cock ring. Etc, etc…But of course in our repressed dialogue with young people these are no-go areas for all but the brave; or the fool-hardy; or people prepared to be pilloried in the stocks by that rotten egg chucking gang the Daily….fill in this bit here. Communication and honesty about sex is stifled. Perhaps those extraterrestrials will have a thing or two to teach us after all then…that is if only we could communicate…

‘I hope no one noticed this cold sore on my lip’

Thanks to all who entered the competition; Sam will be receiving a copy of Red Knob -The Game in the post courtesy of the Shadowy Blokes at The Red Knob.