Friday, August 6, 2010

One Hung Low

PART ONE:  Junk Science

I know exactly what you're thinking.  You're expecting me to say something both salacious and politically incorrect about human anatomy AND funny-sounding Asian names.  But you're wrong.  True to my vow to avoid paralipsis, I'm not even going to mention Long Duk Dong, the drunken and libidinous exchange student in Sixteen Candles (see and I'm certainly not going to recount any "Confucious Say" adages.

But, as my title suggests, I am going to talk about testicles--human ones--and about how these ridiculous, wrinkly little guys "work."  As an introduction to my meditation, I thought we might look at a picture, fortunately in the public domain (and evidently donated by the proudly-groomed photographer himself) which I found on Wikimedia.  Though it pained me a bit to do so, I have cropped off all irrelevant, non-testicular subject matter.

Now, as you can see, one really DOES hang lower than the other.  This is normal, as I'm quite sure most of you know.

What isn't normal is the, well, unencumbered airiness of the pose.  I suppose that some might call this asymmetrical scrotum "overexposed," though that prudishness is exactly what worries me.

Because, I'm really afraid that the only hope for the survival of the human race is the liberation of human testicles from all entangling, restrictive, oppressive and, most especially, overheating garments.

We all remember 7th Grade Health, don't we?  Mr. Polus (or some other phys. ed. teacher)--aided by illustrations of bull testicles and Celsius thermometers--explained to us that the production of human sperm is a very tricky business.  The fastidious little spermatozoa just can't stand too much heat (or cold).  If their wee fuzzy houses aren't kept cooled to about 2 degrees Celsius below body temperature, they just wither up in prostration and refuse to do anything--no furious swimming, no competitive egg hunting, no frantic fertilizing.

And that, of course, is why BOTH of the family jewels hang low--even though one is usually lower than the other.  The scrotum needs COOL air in order to keep its delicate residents happy and in order to ensure that a plentiful supply of sperm will be available and willing to cooperate in reproduction.

In short, the very fate of humankind, hangs upon those manjigglies' ability to hang low enough and freely enough to maintain 35C temperatures.

Which brings us to global warming.

Today, the Weather Channel announced yet another day of record-setting temperatures in much of the U.S., especially in the South:  Dallas, Atlanta, New Orleans, Mobile, Jacksonville, Birmingham.  We've had the hottest decade ever recorded and, most sources believe, 2010 will be the hottest year of this hottest decade (remember, strictly speaking, 2010 is the last year in the decade).

So, just think of all the prostrate sperm that's dying this summer!  And yet, young guys persist in running around in baggy boxer shorts protruding beneath even baggier below-the-knee cargo trunks.  And so, their poor cojones are swaddled up in literally yards of suffocating cloth.  Older dudes--the ones who might actually be interested in making babies--are even more delinquent:  they're literally smothering their sperm factories in a tight inner sheath of jockey briefs beneath a scratchy outer layer of wool (lawyers) or denim (farmers).

This is NOT GOOD.  As global temperatures rise, scrotums do their very best to hang ever lower--but let's face it:  with outside temperatures hovering around 40C, there is simply not enough hanging room inside any undies.  It's just too much of a stretch.  Hence my conclusion:  testicles are going to have to be entirely liberated, set free to flop and jiggle in the breeze.

You're just gonna have to let them all hang out, guys!  Like the well-ventilated pair in the photo. Otherwise, you're facing not just sweaty wedgies, but sterility as well.

PART TWO:  Defense of Nuts Act (or How to Save Humanity from the Threat of Global Warming)

Sartorially, if not fiscally, there IS a more conservative alternative, of course:  i.e, something could be done to arrest or reverse global warming.  Duh. Surely if we all put our thinking caps on, we could figure out some way to preserve the species and still keep those ridiculously asymmetrical testicles tucked modestly inside our shorts.

However, I'm not very optimistic about this possibility.  Despite the overwhelming evidence provided by their drooping ballsacks, most Republicans and many Democrats refuse adamantly to believe that the planet is getting too warm for sperm production.

In fact, they've never even thought of the problem in those terms, have they?

Instead, they've merely speculated about a) which cities might be inundated by rising sea waters, b) which states might become deserts, and, most importantly (c), who would have to PAY for any anti-warming measures.  And the politicos don't find ANY of these issues particularly compelling or, well, "sexy." Ergo, the Senate has simply abandoned its Global Warming Bill and, with it, any further attempt this session to regulate / limit greenhouse gas emissions.  The Republicans, says Fox News, will continue to oppose legislation based upon "junk science."

I love that expression:  "junk science."  What Fox means, of course, is that the learned look-alike journalists at Fox have concluded that, although global warming is a fact that even they cannot dispute, the notion that climate change is human-induced is, well, "junk." Just another socialist, communist, fascist lie intended to persuade innocent people to part with their money.  Well, maybe.  But, given my "meditation" in Part One of this blog, we might also employ the term "junk" as it is used in current slang:  penis and testicles.  Now, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Hemmer, THAT'S quite a different kettle of "junk," isn't it?

Personally, I think the environmentalists could make their case more sexy and politically marketable if they adopted this slang definition of "junk."  Isn't it possible that they would get more votes, especially from senators representing those overheated but prudishly puritanical Southern states if, for instance, they couched their argument in the following terms?

Since the world IS getting warmer (as even Fox agrees), and since increasing temperatures will inevitably endanger human sperm production (as Mr. Polus and the Health teachers explained), the human race has only two good options for survival:

Option 1:  in order to ensure adequate cooling for sperm production, all males must immediately cease binding, supporting or in any way covering their genitals; testicles must be allowed to hang low and swing free.  In this option, religious or esthetic prudishness about concealing "private" parts cannot be tolerated.  Too bad, Puritans and Bible Belters--this erstwhile "indecency" is henceforth an act of moral duty.


Option 2:  emissions of greenhouse gases must be strictly regulated and controlled by governments (even if that socialistic measure costs money), thereby preventing further rises in world temperatures and, ultimately, the extinction of homo sapiens.  In this option, men may continue to keep their "junk" hidden, since Big Government Programs rather than Mandatory Scrotal Exposure would guarantee a sperm-friendly environment.

Despite their fiscal objections, I'll bet those conservative Southern senators would feel morally obligated to support this second option. (And not just morally, but esthetically as well:   heck, they might not be prepared for all the costly and time-consuming "junk grooming" necessitated by Option 1.)

A possible campaign slogan for Option 2?  How about  "Preserve the Sanctity of our Testicles:  Vote for Emission-Control Legislation" ?  And if a catchy title were needed, they could even call the legislation something like the "Defense of Nuts Act"  (DONUTS).  Haha.  I couldn't resist.


  1. this is wonderful and hilarious. i've recently discovered your blog, and i love it! i'll have to catch up on some reading.

  2. Somehow I missed this comment. Thanks, Martha. I write mostly for the pleasure of it, but I LOVE to have readers besides myself.