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?
Update:
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.
I just laughed my butt off! That is so patently simple, and believable. I'm going on record now to say that I believe it would influence the public negatively if the challenger declined.
I guess the Supreme Court would have to decide who's ahem...unit was triumphantly the winner, and then we might have another "stolen" election. Talk about performance anxiety.
Can you imagine Hannity and Colmes trying to cover this event? Hehehe.
BTW, would it be acceptable in this type of election to win by a "small" margin?
Is this with or without fluffers?
As regards the girlie-men comment, that had to do with behavior, not equipment. The Governator might have phrased it a little more politely, but he had a valid point.
Well, the height of our candidates isn't a good indicator of "member length".
In my experience, height has little to do with penis size. A tall man is as likely to be hung like a grasshopper as a short man.... and vice-versa.
Pffff... hilarious. I guess all the campaign donations would go instead to penis-enlargement treatments since there would no longer be a need to campaign.
michelle: "I guess all the campaign donations would go instead to penis-enlargement treatments since there would no longer be a need to campaign."
I'm sure we've all received plenty of email offers for such services/products. Maybe we should forward them all to the candidates.
Hmmm...are not the two pieces of equipment just a little bit further south a little more relevant to the job than the one you have highlighted?
...quit beating around the bush
You kill me, Michael ;)
B: I try to be subtle....
I'd really rather they settled it with broadswords. Or monster trucks, I'm not particular...
I guess it would also keep women from becoming president too huh.
Oh, I know a few women who've got a bigger, brassier pair on 'em than most men. (figuratively speaking of course)
Mark: this is probably my only chance to find out if that thing they told me in Junior High is true... is a man's length related to the length of his middle finger?