On Tuesday, Jon Hamm’s penis once again made its parameters known. Can I just say, “No thank you.”
Perhaps I was naive in my teens and twenties. Undoubtedly, I was. But I have no memories of bulges getting such breathless coverage in the media as they have been in the last few years.
I’m not prude. I’ll look at an exhaustively compiled list of full frontal nudity. I enjoy a good #GreySweatpantsChallenge pic. This is the only scene of The Leftovers I’ve ever watched. Every time a photo of a celebrity with thin outerwear circulates on the Internet, I inevitably look. But then I feel so...dissatisfied.
A bump? A lump? Even if, improbably, you can make out the width, girth and head of the penis through a piece of cloth, you’re not learning much about this dick’s full potential. A dick going to get a cup of coffee in sweats is not showing its best. That’s true of all of us! There’s some indication of size, sure, but these things are very changeable according to circumstance.
Could this be a response to all the panty-less crotch shots and wardrobe malfunctions of female celebrities we’ve been subjected to for years? Women are shamed or leered at for having bodies, so looking at an amorphous blob behind a piece of cloth while saying, “Ohh, yeahhh,” is payback. Sorry, I think we’re giving these dicks too much credit. As usual.
Or it’s just simple curiosity. Now we know: Jon Hamm’s penis is about the size of an obese hamster. This knowledge has not gotten me closer to having sex with Jon Hamm, who would probably be rude to me during it anyway. If there are better reasons for loving paparazzi images of something that resembles a sock trapped under a duvet cover, please let me know. From here on out I will no longer pretend that these images do a thing for me.