News flash: holder of record for penis size unemployed.
Yup, it's true; the guy who supposedly is the proud owner of the world's
largest male sexual organ (13.5 inches, erect)
can't get a job, and worse still, is living with his mother.
I hadn't realized how truly dire the unemployment situation in this country was until I read that. I mean, if this guy can't find a job, what hope is there for the rest of us? Surely, he could get a job as a legal male prostitute, or in the ideally suited porn industry which, I'm given to understand (not that I would know), is populated by men with phenomenally large Johnsons. But no, says this modern day swordsman; he won't do that because it would destroy his credibility, a concern he apparently didn't have when he appeared in an HBO documentary about men with large appendages .
In spite of his prior HBO appearance, he couldn't get the job that, it would appear, was tailor-made for him, the title role in the HBO series Hung
, based on a character who turns his prodigious endowment into a money-maker, catering to the needs of sex-starved matrons. The actually hung guy lost this role to the actor who played Mickey Mantle in the TV movie about Roger Maris' home run record. Strangely, that actor, Thomas Jane , who professes no illusions about his own endowment, utters a line in the movie (supposedly Mantle's in real life) about how he prefers women with small hands because they make his dick look big.
Surely, this guy isn't going wanting for a job for a lack of confidence. If anything will or should give a man confidence, it's knowing his junk is bigger than anyone else's, right? There's no scientific study that I know of that supports the assertion that male confidence is directly proportional to male genital size, and yet, who doubts that there's some correlation?
Wasn't it always the guy with something to show who took every opportunity to waltz around the locker room in his altogether in high school (and even later)? So, does size matter? It's of little comfort to someone who may be lacking in that department (a status—-trust me—-I can only relate to vicariously) that surveys indicate the “motion of the ocean” is more important to most sex partners than the “size of the boat.” Yet, when all is said and done, don't bigger boats cause bigger waves?
This is one area where men have it all over women. For ages, women have suffered the indignity of having two of their two most prominent sex organs be on display. Just ask any woman how often she's had a man talk to her breasts, instead of to her (an experience Thomas Jane could relate to when, he said, people started talking to his crotch after he got the role in Hung
. Imagine if mother nature had engineered things differently, so that women could hide their breast size, but men had to wear their “package” on the outside.
The shift in the balance of power would be monumental. The wage disparity between men and women would pretty much disappear, but more importantly, all the men in history who had to compensate for their lack of penile proportion would suddenly be put in their place. SUV's might never have been invented, for example. But, more importantly, world history would be different as well.
How would Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or, for that matter, Adolph Hitler have achieved their awesome power if everyone knew (and could see) how minimal their manhood really was? Hitler was reputed to be underwhelmingly sized, leading to speculation about the inevitable historic consequences.
And who could possibly doubt that George Bush's appearance on the aircraft carrier in a flight costume prominently embellished with a codpiece was an exercise in over-compensation on his part. I doubt the country would have elected a conspicuously under-sized president. Clinton might have won or lost, depending on which of his former consorts you believe.
All I can say is, thank goodness for the male/female difference, insofar as the manifestation of organ size goes: I wouldn't want to be president, anyway.