Abraham Lincoln once said, "In life, what counts is the size of a man's heart, not the size of his disproportionate willie."
Lo, there was an awkward moment of silence among those standing in the open shower at the old White House CrossFit gym, as the 16th president nervously added, "I'm serious, guys. That's what counts. Seriously."
But despite Lincoln's largely unknown and forgotten "Wee-man-cipation Proclamation" -- which I may have just completely made up -- a recent study appears to have proven this belief scientifically incorrect.
Yes, gentlemen, when it comes to the preference of heterosexual women, perhaps our worst fear is true.
Size does matter.
At least according to a new study that quickly found its way around the Internet.
Because, of course it did.
We like this kind of stuff -- anything about genitals or cats. Whereas, if they found a cure for cancer, maybe six people would give it a tweet.
"They cured cancer. But check out this cat! LOL. #Kitteh"
You're all weirdo sinners. And I like that.
The big buzz about this study started when research results appeared this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Which is one of those fancy journals where normal people understand about every 15th word. And even fewer if you cheated your way through Mr. Ware's high school physiology and anatomy class.
"Psst. What bone is this?"
"Dude, Bellini, that's not a bone. That's your pencil."
The point is that it's a super-science-y journal. And it's difficult to read. But, on the plus side, for those of us more intellectually suited to watching a good episode of "Cops," if you sound out the publication's acronym, PNAS, it makes a delightfully funny word that brings us right back to the topic at hand.
Package size. And why it matters.
Brian Mautz, an American biologist now at the University of Ottawa, was the lead author of the study, and conducted his research while in Australia. Which I believe completely invalidates the results.
Not for any particularly scientific reason, but it helps me sleep at night.
Even Conan O'Brien took solace in the technicality: "The Good news? My wife isn't Australian."
Regardless, just how does one come to a scientific, unbiased conclusion on the importance of large manhood? You know, without mixing in other result-skewing personal features like a lush ginger beard and a bald head.
Those kind of horrible things.
Well, that's where the computer models come in.
Down in Australia, 105 lucky ladies were asked to rate the sexual attractiveness of about 50 life-sized computer-generated, naked male figures with different body structures. Some were tall. Some were short. Some were thin. Some of them may have been John Candy.
(Full images of the figures here. Warning: Featureless, gray full-frontal)
We'll never know, because the gray-colored figures did not possess any other features. Just unique body types and varying amounts of Speedo filler.
The figures were then projected on a screen so the women could rate them from 1 to 7. Which absolutely bothers me. All rating scales should go to 10. I'm a metric guy, and it's just the natural order of things.