Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Esquire's Question of the Day

WARNING: Today's post contains adult language and graphic content that ay not be appropriate for Hasidic Jews.

Yesterday morning, crankyjewishguy (CJG) was at one of his favorite coffee shops (i.e. not a Starbucks) where they have a magazine rack filled with interesting magazines you can read while you drink your coffee (as opposed to Starbucks where they will sell you a copy of Howard Schultz's new book about Starbucks).

Anyway, they had the new issue of Esquire which had a major article on men's health that included the results of an extensive survey. Most of the questions were predictable, such as how often do you exercise, what do you eat, are you getting enough sleep and so on. But there was one question that really stuck out, so to speak, and it was a very simple one: can you see your penis? pretty direct, too.

But simple questions defy simple answers, despite the fact that 83% of respondents answered "yes." For example, this question could just as easily be about eye sight as body weight. Before CJG guy had cataract surgery last year, without his glasses he couldn't see his hands if he held them up in front of his face and his penis is half way down his body; well out of range. The question is also more complicated than it appears because it didn't specify whether the penis should be flaccid or erect, nor does it make allowances for size. CJG bets there are some heavy men who would have to answer "sometimes" to what appears to be a yes/no question. So, if these men overwhelmingly assumed an erect penis we may have a skewed picture of whether they have a weight problem. It also seems to CJG that the question -- can you see your penis -- cries out for multiple choice answers such as (a) yes, (b) no, (c) easily, (d) in brightly illuminated rooms or (e) when I look in the mirror.

If, as CJG assumes, Esquire was trying to get a handle on how many men have a weight problem, aren't there better ways to find out? Like asking: are you overweight? This is why CJG puts very little stock in articles that appear in Esquire.

P.S. For obvious reasons, today's post has no pictures.

No comments:

Post a Comment