The Role of the Penis in Republican Politics

And in the genital election.

A hidden agenda?

Imagine you are in the fifth grade—no, make that the third grade. I’m sure this is hard for most of you to do, since you probably have been doing lots of different things since the third grade, and your mind, I’m sure, is occupied with other matters. And some of the things that went on back then did not seem very important, even back then. But try to remember. If you were a boy, (I exempt women from this discussion) you had to establish your preeminence by tests of virility—how big your bicep was, how far you could urinate, etc. It was not usual to compare penis size, first because the penis varies in size according to temperature, among other influences, and also because most boys suspect that their penises are smaller than they should be. According to Freud, this came from little boys seeing their fathers urinate. Freud had a lively imagination.

Although it was not common to say, “My penis is bigger than your penis,” for reasons mentioned above, it was a common slight to suggest that “your penis is teeny” judged by some universal standard, or words to that effect. The other boys would snicker and laugh and maybe point a derisive finger. If they made the unfortunate child cry, they got two points. Which brings me to the Republican campaign for President.

Probably Trump started it when he said that Hillary Clinton had been “schlonged” by Barack Obama. The only way he could make this important point, apparently, was by converting the noun, Schlong, a Yiddish expression for the penis, into a verb—which I might say in passing I regard as deplorable. There are many ways he could have made his point without twisting the language out of shape. Take note also that the person being “schlonged” was a woman who did not have even a small penis. ( I will allude to this fact later on.)

Next up, I think, (I wasn’t paying close attention) was Marco Rubio. After suggesting that Trump had wet his pants backstage at a debate, (a slur on his manhood), he went on to comment on Trump’s “small hands” and with a practiced leer suggested that that might reflect on other areas of the body. Most people presumed that the other part of the body referred to was the penis. I have to say, speaking as a physician, that Rubio was displaying a complete lack of knowledge about physiology. The size of one’s hands does not speak to the size of the male genital any more than a woman’s lips can be used to deduce the appearance of her genitals—another idea common among male grade school students.

These remarks seemed out of character for Rubio who had previously limited himself to a phrase or two attacking the current Democratic administration. Some people thought that an allusion to Trump’s penis was somewhat out of place in a race for President and indicated a tendency on his part towards desperation. Others encouraged him to go further. “Get down to Trump’s level.”

Alas, Trump did not at this point take the high road. He could have ignored Rubio’s remark as beneath him; instead, during the next debate, without waiting to be questioned about his penis, he brought it up. He insisted, smiling, that his penis was fine; and for one terrible moment, I thought he was going to unzip his fly and prove it right then and there.

All this talk about penises is an indirect way of determining how someone will respond to the threats of war and internal discord that confront every President. We want our Presidents to be able to stand up to public unions and to face down Russian and Chinese oligarchs and deal assertively with all the other challenges of a modern Presidency. Trump, in particular, has built his candidacy on the concept of his strength. He would, by force of character alone, make the Mexicans pay for a wall that they do not want, get North Korea to disarm, and bend the Europeans to his will. If the intimation that he had a small penis were to go unchallenged, his whole candidacy might be threatened.

But perhaps behind this schoolyard back and forth is another, more subtle, purpose. Perhaps the candidates are thinking of the contest yet to come. Plainly, they expect to be running against Hillary Clinton. They may think it difficult to bring up the subject of penises while debating her on stage. Perhaps, they may conjecture, women, who make up the majority of the electorate, might be offended. Now is the time to establish their superiority in such matters. Just referring to a woman menstruating, as Trump did with a female moderator after one debate, might not be enough to gather the guys around him in support. A good-sized penis is forever beyond Hillary’s reach (so to speak.)

Penis Envy.

Freud had a theory about how young women responded to their obvious inferiority in not having a penis. He called this penis envy. I have never heard a woman express to me a wish to have a penis except very temporarily during intercourse; but, as I said before, Freud had a lively imagination. I mention this now, though, because it has been widely bruited about that in order to compensate for her female inadequacy Hillary might, if she were elected, take a more belligerent stance in the Middle East than she would if she were a man. This is all complicated by the “breast-penis-feces equation,” which I would explain here, except that I don’t understand it. In any case, the Republicans have intimated that being a woman, Hillary would naturally rely on Bill her husband. Of course, he was immoral and now his immorality will be foisted on the American public all over again.

But, in the final analysis, this is all beside the point. Hillary (snicker, snicker) does not have a penis. Consequently, she can never aspire to make America truly great again.. This, I think, is the subtle thesis of the penis argument between Rubio and Trump. (c) Fredric Neuman  Author of “Come One,  Come All.”