[Tychy is today pleased to welcome a new and exclusive contribution from the cream of America’s intellectual right-wing. Charles Murray is the co-author (with the late Richard J. Herrnstein) of The Bell Curve (1994) and the author of Coming Apart (2012).]
I had previously signified that my latest book Coming Apart would most likely serve as my valedictory on the questions of happiness and public policy. Coming Apart made the case that between 1960 and 2010, our society had witnessed the disintegration of a widely shared code of behaviour and values which had hitherto underpinned the American project. America was witnessing a new kind of social segregation and one which resulted specifically from the elite’s neglect of their most important responsibility. They had failed to educate America’s citizenry about the virtues that had once made America exceptional: industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity.
I did not expect my book to win hearts and minds. I merely wanted to induce recognition of a new chapter in America’s history and what I judged to be an impending crisis point in our morality. All Americans, of all political creeds, share as a goal the need to further human happiness. There were many fair and respectful responses to my book, and even some which I found unexpectedly valuable.
After consulting with friends and colleagues prior to publication, I made the decision to exclude a certain sample of data from Coming Apart. This data amounted to some of the most surprising in the book, and I feared that it would eclipse my broader objectives. This website is the place to share some of the more unsettling findings from my research.
Although it is a fact rarely acknowledged by social scientists, one of the most significant causes of human happiness, both within marriage and also during a male child’s cognitive development, is the size of the penis. All of the available studies concur that having a large penis will leave the pre-adult male child with higher self-esteem and a far deeper sense of self-satisfaction. A large penis has been proven to make teenaged boys more competitive and entrepreneurial.
Eighty-seven percent of age 16-21 General Social Survey (GSS) respondents with non-flaccid penises larger than six inches reported having feelings of “unqualified optimism” towards the future. By contrast, only fifteen percent reported having feelings of “decided uncertainty.”
I am not denying for a moment that many individuals will obtain self-confidence from all manner of unexpected sources. Equally, some people may believe all sorts of things about their dicks. But as a statistical totality, they will overwhelmingly benefit from being bigger where it matters.
Now let us look at how penis size is distributed across class. I have chosen to restrict my analysis to the white penis. For decades now, trends in penal implement analysis have been presented in terms of race and ethnicity, with a historical tendency to assume that having a small penis is exclusively an Asian problem. Yet I want to look at penis variations across the class spectrum, with reference to a fantasy world in which there are no black people.
Let us return to the fictional neighbourhoods which I had originally devised for Coming Apart, as the best means of isolating and presenting the most important statistical trends from my research. Fishtown is based upon a real zip code in north-eastern Philadelphia, but for the purposes of Coming Apart, I had removed any resident who had gotten further in their education than high school or procured a job with a higher status than blue collar. Likewise, the real Boston suburb of Belmont was reconfigured to exclude anybody who had not obtained a bachelor’s or graduate degree, or who was not employed in a high status professional occupation.
One might expect the tough working-class citizens of Fishtown to have larger penises, but Figure 1.1 demonstrates that our preconceptions about the working class need to be radically revised.
Between 1960 and 2012, the mean non-flaccid penis size of Fishtown’s male residents witnessed a steep decline, from 6.3 inches at the start of the period to 4.7 at its conclusion. Within fifty years, the average working man’s penis was a third shorter in length. And there is scant indication that such a startling trend is levelling out. By 2050, the average working class penis is projected to be the size of a cashew nut.
Now let us turn to Belmont. One might expect the effete liberal citizens of this upper middle-class community to have relatively modest penises. But Figure 1.2 confounds such expectations.
In 1960, the average Belmont resident was sporting an admittedly impressive 6.5 inches of manhood. By the time that Barack Obama was installed in the White House, the average upper middle-class gentleman was strutting around his bedroom with a whopping 7.8 inches bobbing in front of him.
I should explain that for both zip codes the GSS fails to include data about the average length of female penises. In some instances, I have made allowances for this deficiency by matching every male length with a female value of zero and then adding the penis length of that male’s uncle on his father’s side to compensate. I have hereby arrived at an overall balanced mean.
How should we respond to such a growing divergence of penis sizes across the American class spectrum? If you are a social conservative, you might want to restore some sense of equilibrium by redistributing taxpayers’ money. Perhaps you think that working-class men with low self-esteem and unsatisfied wives will be able to respect themselves a bit more if they are thrown a few extra tax credits. If you are on the liberal left, you will undoubtedly want to march on upper middle-class SuperZips and subject their citizens to mass castrations. For you, the answer may be to burn piles of severed penises on huge bonfires or to hang them from trees to be publically reviled.
I doubt that I can persuade many people of the virtues of my own libertarian alternative, but I will advance it all the same. Many early observers of the American project noted the pride which the founding fathers took in the size of their genitalia. Having a big dick was seen not only as the means of satisfying your wife, but as evidence of God’s generosity towards the American people. The unbridled freedoms of the American citizen were both confirmed and symbolised in his engorged manhood.
George Washington declared at the first ever Congress that, “modesty dissuades me from conveying the magnitude of my own package, but it is far from inconsiderable.” Benjamin Franklin displayed his genitalia to thousands of women. One English spy who joined the founders in the showers after the Constitutional Convention was astonished by the “considerable enormity” of Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison’s members, whilst adding glumly that, “mine own is nothing to write home about.”
The founders believed that America could achieve anything and secure lasting happiness for its citizens, so long as its leaders retained the self-confidence that results from having a large penis. Being well endowed was not only beneficial in many practical respects – it was the bedrock upon which the whole of the American project was founded.
The decline in working-class genitalia is offset by a skyrocketing of the upper middle-class penis. In net terms, therefore, the average American penis is the same size that it has always been. Fortunately, the success of the American project depends only upon the bodily superiority of the elite. We can increasingly look to upper middle-class Americans with huge wieners for the self-assurance that our nation badly needs.
An overwhelming advantage of our American way of life is that we lack the social envy and class bitterness which have blighted European nations. When a rich Harvard graduate or a talented Google executive waves his dick in our faces, we will celebrate this as ardently as we would the raising of the Stars and Stripes.
[Our thanks to Charles Murray for sharing the cream of America’s intellectual right-wing. Ed.]