Yeah, like any man, straight or gay, is going to give an accurate measurement. Every gay guy will make out like they are hung like a horse. No one is going to say, “elbow macaroni.”

Either a horny woman came up with this study, or a gay man.

Jonathan E. Grant on July 18, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we replaced the bloated bureaucracy and their big spending Congressional enablers with some of those cocaine-addled rats they’ve been letting loose since ’03.

Brian R. on July 18, 2011 at 6:49 pm

“$1.2 million spent since 2003 trying to find out whether a mother rat, if given cocaine, will abandon her babies.”

Wow. I’ll bet a fair amount of that research cocaine was taken by the government researchers.

DS_ROCKS! on July 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm

Well, civilization was a nice try while it lasted.

Little Al on July 18, 2011 at 7:23 pm

“Where are the Republicans in cutting crap like this?”

They are complicit with this. They did not raise much of a stink with a majority of the money from Stimulus 1 & 2 going overseas. Why would they say anything about this? Anymore, there is a fine line between Dems and Reps… and that line is hazy at best. Thanks, RINOs!

pats on July 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Why did the federal government have to contribute to such a study? It sounds more like a setup for a gay porno flick. As for the other studies, especially the mother rat one, they appear to be duplicative of studies done many times before. Just look at the data sets from previous studies done on drug abuse using lab animals and humans. Is there some new element that has intervened since those studies were conducted? If not, what justification could one have for setting up an entirely new study? Our space program is dying out, but substantial sums can be blown on repetitive studies that yield little or no new information to the researchers.

Worry01 on July 18, 2011 at 7:55 pm

Guess it’s part of the “don’t ask don’t tell” agenda…….

Gino on July 18, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Forgot to mention – the article’s title is priceless: “Govt Study on Gay Penis Size – The Work of a Lasting Civilization”

Nice work again, Debbie, exposing this nightmare occurring in our Country.

DS_ROCKS! on July 18, 2011 at 8:38 pm

I bet Bawney Fwanks fingerprints are all over this study. (Sorry I couldn’t resist)

samurai on July 18, 2011 at 10:20 pm

“…to better understand the real individual-level consequences of living in a penis-centered society;”

Shouldn’t research like this be handled by the “private” sector?

It took them 10 years to adequately perform that study?

Wonder how much we got charged for tape measures?

How can anyone read those reports and not think “Well, it’s clear the NIH has no real purpose and should be eliminated”?

It’s clear if they can throw money away like that, that the USA has no real health problems to spend money researching. Right?

Members Only? on July 18, 2011 at 11:21 pm

I wonder if Anthony Weiner made a sizable contribution to this legislation? Did he appropriate enough resources to this study?

CaliforniaScreaming on July 18, 2011 at 11:52 pm

Un. Frakking. Believable. Really, WTF? Time for pitchforks and torches and run the bums outta town on a rail.

Disgusted on July 19, 2011 at 1:59 am

Actually there could be a good reason to do such a study. My wife is a long-time RN who worked for several years with a group of colo-rectal surgeons. On more than one occasion I would be sitting in the lobby and see guys snuggling up and making goo-goo eyes at each other as they waited to see one of the doctors. When I’d tell my wife how grossed out I’d get, she’d tell me how common it was to see these guys there with anal/rectal problems.

So you see, there is a good reason to study gay penis size – to measure what size a penis would need to be to start causing enough damage for someone to be referred to a specialist, and have an insurance company, or the government, pay for it.

Butt, er, uh, I mean but, I’ll bet that you won’t see studies about gay anuses or rectums because that might bring attention to what a health hazard gay sex can be, and, how much it costs insurance companies and taxpayers.

CornCoLeo on July 19, 2011 at 2:44 am

I get emails from a woman who is even MORE fiery than Debbie. Her name is Devvy Kidd from Texas. On that stupid size story she said the following…AND I QUOTE…

“The rape of the American people to study the length of a sodomite’s Johnson to have sex in another man’s feces. Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for my incumbent the last two elections. Mr. Magoo could do a better job.”

Told ya she’s fiery! She happens to be American of Italian dissent.

Bob Porrazzo on July 19, 2011 at 6:37 am

“… of living in a penis-centered society” – if indeed these words were in the study then on what basis would they have decreed that society is penis-centred. Gay society maybe but the evidence is that what male society is obsessed with concerning sex is not penis’s but females. So the study would have been by gays.

The Daily Mail article on this story ends:
***
The study, which last year was published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, claimed there previously had been ‘little research among men who have sex with men assessing the association between penis size and socio-sexual health’.

One of the researchers involved with the report told Fox News that NIH funding was only used to help ‘analyse and write up’ data that had already been collected without the use of taxpayer funds.

Jeffrey Parsons, a professor with Hunter College, said: ‘The data were not collected using taxpayer funds. NIH funds were not used to measure anyone’s penis size.’

He said that the report referenced a much broader ‘post-doctoral training programme’ of which the penis-study funding was a ‘small’ part.

He said: ‘To suggest that $9.4 million dollars was spent to study penis sizes is factually inaccurate and simply designed to create news.’
***

Josh on July 19, 2011 at 7:05 am

Three friends — two straight guys and a gay guy — and their significant others were on a cruise. A tidal wave came up and swamped the ship; they all drowned, and next thing you know, they’re standing before St. Peter.

First came one of the straight guys and his wife. St. Peter shook his head sadly. “I can’t let you in. You loved money too much. You loved it so much, you even married a woman named Penny.”

Then came the second straight guy. “Sorry, can’t let you in, either. You loved food too much. You loved to eat so much, you even married a woman named Candy!”

The gay guy turned to his boyfriend and whispered nervously, “It doesn’t look good, Dick.”

Jack on July 19, 2011 at 9:32 am

Jack – that’s a good one!

Michelle on July 19, 2011 at 4:50 pm

Good one Jack. For all the folks out there that think women don’t think about penis size, some of them do. Like a lot of them. Every black female I worked with made some reference to that subject. It mattered to them, young and older. I got a good laugh out of some of their comments and stories. The other ones, not as much. Really. I remember one church lady around 30 years old assigned to the gate. She walked right up, and told me she wanted to find out if “it was worthy of insertion.” Very matter of factly. I just laughed at her, stopped, put my hands up as if in submission, because at that time women were aloud to search males. She waved me through after looking over her shoulder at another officer. Others didn’t just wave guys through.

samurai on July 19, 2011 at 6:13 pm

All well and good.. except the search of their website lists many studies.. but not this one. Where is your support data? link?

Dave on July 20, 2011 at 1:23 am

I think the issue is that homosexuals like to have sex with boys from the infant age on up. Clearly, penis size and having sex with infants can be an issue. I recall seeing on a YouTube video the President of the North American Man Boy Love group talking about such difficulties. Surprisingly, I don’t think he’s been arrest for publicly admitting to having sex with infants yet but he says it causes problem for the infants internal organs. Grossed out yet? Well some homosexual is going to post that more child molestation is committed by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. That’s partially true. Only 2%-17% (depending on which study you believe) of the population are homosexual but the most prominent number I see for child molestation by homosexuals is 32%. So 32% of child molestations are committed by 2%-17% of the population. Given the incidences of homosexual marriages and adoption, that number is likely to skyrocket, though I doubt the rapes will be reported for another 20 years, much as the situation with the clergy.

John Dodrill on July 20, 2011 at 3:40 am

This proves there is not a dimes worth of difference between democrats and republicans. This is about as stupid as the money wasted on studying shrimp on a treadmill.
The movie “Idiocracy” was right, only we did NOT have to wait 500 years for it to happen.

Who cares? on July 20, 2011 at 10:14 am

Was this really necessary?

Ghostwriter on July 20, 2011 at 5:55 pm

These so called “studies” are really conduits to funnel cash to activists. Just one of many ways the government uses to pay activist groups.

Brian on July 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm