All the recent political posturing is really amusing, and I wonder what would happen if during a debate, say, one of the candidates challenged the other to settle the election by simply comparing penis lengths. Let's just whip 'em out, and whoever's is smaller has to go home.
Rationally, obviously, such a challenge would be ridiculous, but what would happen if it were issued by candidate A to candidate B? If B refused then A would simply laugh and point out that B must have a tiny penis. Again, obviously irrelevant, but how would it affect the public's perception of the two candidates? If you think the effect would be zero I think you're mistaken. Would the challenge hurt the challenger? Would it hurt the challenged if he refused?
What if B accepted and the candidates did whip 'em out? Let's say neither candidate resigned afterwards but the public now knew the sizes of each candidate's running-mate -- any effect on the election?
Maybe some of you reading this are offended, and I know the question is pretty silly, but many of the speeches and positions taken (such as Arnold's "girlie-men" bit) play right into this theme... so why not cut directly to the chase and quit beating around the bush?
On a serious note, John Kerry would probably be at a disadvantage because he had his prostate removed due to cancer. Prostate cancer is a serious threat to men over age 40, so be sure to get screened early and regularly.