A man who feels his penis is so small that it qualifies him as disabled is attempting to secure government recognition of the status.
Single at 50, he is said to be nevertheless the envy of others his age, being fair of countenance, and having a trim figure and a full head of hair. However, he does have one problem: a very small penis. He says of himself: “It’s too much – my testicles are the size of beans and the rest is tiny too.”
Doctors diagnose him with a hereditary growth defect of the sexual organs, with the ensuing hormonal imbalance being held responsible for his high-pitched voice and fine features.
Whilst he may not have problems attracting the opposite sex, he is mortified of his condition being found out; needless to say, he has never had a sexual encounter, refusing even when so propositioned, so afraid is he of the ridicule possible.
His parents have passed on leaving him a house, but a lack of marriage prospects dent any material wellbeing he might have. So much so in fact, that he petitions the government thus:
“I should be considered no different from a physically disabled person. The suffering I have endured so far is abnormal. I can’t see how I can be considered in good health.”
Naturally, the government refused him, saying he did not meet their criteria for disability. It seems he has little recourse now but to endure his plight of underendowment.
Can this really be considered disability? If so, might we not consider the very ugly or otherwise socially handicapped disabled? Interesting question.