I'd like to welcome back to the blog our old friend, the penis. Hi, penis! (Admit it. Penis is a funny word. I wouldn't have to do these stories if it wasn't so funny sounding and if it wasn't so ridiculous looking. I still have no idea how you guys walk around with those things.) This account of a grundle wronged comes to us from the website Above The Law
(a highly entertaining and simultaneously informative website which I highly recommend) and the courts of Escambia County in Florida. It would seem that a one Albert Freed was given some Hanes tightie whities by his wife to wear for their trip to Hawaii. Mr Freed, being a man of larger stature, subsequently ended up suing Hanes because of said briefs. It would seem that Mr. Freed claimed that the undergarment did not contain his genitals the way that they are intended to be contained (that is to say, inside the underwear) and as a result, his unit was somewhat exposed. Mr. Freed claimed that due to said unit exposure, coupled with a Hawaiian condition known as "the sand", his penis was unnecessarily chafed and rubbed raw. Wait. Ow. Wait. Ow. What now? Ow.
(a highly entertaining and simultaneously informative website which I highly recommend) and the courts of Escambia County in Florida. It would seem that a one Albert Freed was given some Hanes tightie whities by his wife to wear for their trip to Hawaii. Mr Freed, being a man of larger stature, subsequently ended up suing Hanes because of said briefs. It would seem that Mr. Freed claimed that the undergarment did not contain his genitals the way that they are intended to be contained (that is to say, inside the underwear) and as a result, his unit was somewhat exposed. Mr. Freed claimed that due to said unit exposure, coupled with a Hawaiian condition known as "the sand", his penis was unnecessarily chafed and rubbed raw. Wait. Ow. Wait. Ow. What now? Ow. 
Look, I don't even have a penis, but having a raw one seems like it would really hurt. Now, mind you, they were in Hawaii for three weeks. He claims that he knew his manhood hurt, but he never looked at it to see why it hurt. Um, wait. He never...looked? At it? Yes, that is correct. It would seem that Mr. Freed is SO large that he is unable to gaze lovingly at his own genitalia. That's right. He's lost his own penis on his own body due to an overly substantial bodily girth (and not in a good way). 
I know I've mentioned this before, but even though I don't have a penis, I would think that if I DID have one, I wouldn't lose track of it. I'd think I'd want to know where it is and what it's doing at all times! How do you not know what's going on with your own penis? I don't understand that at all. 
Now, Mr. Freed would have countered my bewilderment with the argument that he used in court which was that he is a "belly man" and his weight prevents him from looking down and seeing his own penis. He also would contend that he didn't stand in front of a mirror or some other type of reflective device to inspect said raw unit because that's "just not something that he would do". He also would claim that he didn't ask his wife to look at it because "
They're in Hawaii and he's not going to involve his penis in this trip at any point in time? He's not going to want to involve his penis at any point in time? I find that amazing. The last time I went to Hawaii, there was fornication before we even unpacked! This guy is there for three weeks and not only does he not see his penis, neither does his wife. Odd. 
So how did he come to the conclusion that it was the Hanes underwear that was causing him to have an irritated wiener? Apparently, the second to the last day before the end of the trip, his wife was not around and he was walking around the condo that they had rented in just his allegedly defective undergarments and walked past a mirror. That's when he noticed that he was slightly protruding from the briefs. All right now. Now, if this had been 
going on the entire time (and we're talking almost three weeks, folks) and right at the end this "belly man" happens to wander past a mirror and see his unit poking out, it had to be reminiscent of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer at that point, wouldn't you think? That or an angry turtle poking its head out into the world. Isn't that about the same point where the case would have gone from being called Freed v. Hanes to Fireman's Helmet v. Hanes?
going on the entire time (and we're talking almost three weeks, folks) and right at the end this "belly man" happens to wander past a mirror and see his unit poking out, it had to be reminiscent of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer at that point, wouldn't you think? That or an angry turtle poking its head out into the world. Isn't that about the same point where the case would have gone from being called Freed v. Hanes to Fireman's Helmet v. Hanes? So, this guy is claiming that with the protruding 
penis and the sand from the water (he was wearing his underwear underneath his swim trunks? That strikes me as odd. Does he not know how swim trunks work? They usually work sans underpants.), the little sides of the pee hole there acted like abrasive sandpaper. Ouchie! Sounds like (if this was actually the case) that he's damn lucky he didn't decapitate the little fellow. Who wears their underwear underneath their swim trunks?
penis and the sand from the water (he was wearing his underwear underneath his swim trunks? That strikes me as odd. Does he not know how swim trunks work? They usually work sans underpants.), the little sides of the pee hole there acted like abrasive sandpaper. Ouchie! Sounds like (if this was actually the case) that he's damn lucky he didn't decapitate the little fellow. Who wears their underwear underneath their swim trunks? The court decided
against this lunatic. Perhaps it was the "expert testimony" (an expert in underwear? Nice profession. Is there a degree for that?) in which they basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that any sort of 'yawning' by said briefs would be due to too large of an ass shoved into too small of a pant for underneath. So had Mr. Freed perhaps stepped it up a notch and gotten the 58s instead of the 56s there might have been all of the raw penis that developed. Then again, in Mr. Freed's defense, it was his wife that bought them for him for the trip. Perhaps those are the sorts of gifts that older couples exchange before embarking on a three week journey to the Hawaiian Islands, but again, the last time I went to Hawaii, I think I was given the pre-trip gift of lots of liquor (not to mention the gift of groping I was given on said plane ride to said islands. Ah, Hawaii.). And I don't know how she could have been expected to get the correct size. After all, he doesn't ask her to inspect his penis, remember? That's just not something that he would do. Clearly.
against this lunatic. Perhaps it was the "expert testimony" (an expert in underwear? Nice profession. Is there a degree for that?) in which they basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that any sort of 'yawning' by said briefs would be due to too large of an ass shoved into too small of a pant for underneath. So had Mr. Freed perhaps stepped it up a notch and gotten the 58s instead of the 56s there might have been all of the raw penis that developed. Then again, in Mr. Freed's defense, it was his wife that bought them for him for the trip. Perhaps those are the sorts of gifts that older couples exchange before embarking on a three week journey to the Hawaiian Islands, but again, the last time I went to Hawaii, I think I was given the pre-trip gift of lots of liquor (not to mention the gift of groping I was given on said plane ride to said islands. Ah, Hawaii.). And I don't know how she could have been expected to get the correct size. After all, he doesn't ask her to inspect his penis, remember? That's just not something that he would do. Clearly.And get this: At the end of the ruling (you know, the part where they said in
legalese that the guy was too damn fat for his own underwear and wasn't getting a dime for his raw weenie) the judge writes "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendant who shall go hence without day." Go hence without day? What does that even mean? Let's break it down. There's "Go". We know what that means. "Hence". That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this at all. "Without" means not with. And then "day". So it seems to mean "don't have a day". Is that right? Did that judge sentence that poor fat man with the super sore schlong to death? Good Lord, Your Honor, isn't that a bit much?! (You know, even if that isn't what it means, I'm going to start saying that. A lot. To everyone.)
legalese that the guy was too damn fat for his own underwear and wasn't getting a dime for his raw weenie) the judge writes "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendant who shall go hence without day." Go hence without day? What does that even mean? Let's break it down. There's "Go". We know what that means. "Hence". That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this at all. "Without" means not with. And then "day". So it seems to mean "don't have a day". Is that right? Did that judge sentence that poor fat man with the super sore schlong to death? Good Lord, Your Honor, isn't that a bit much?! (You know, even if that isn't what it means, I'm going to start saying that. A lot. To everyone.)
What have we learned from this? More than we bargained for, I'll tell you that much. We've learned that it's important to always keep your genitals where you can see them at a moment's notice. We've learned that grundle pain should most likely be investigated the moment it happens. Most importantly I think that we've learned to buy some damned underwear that actually fit and that won't be giving the contents of said underwear a room with a view. Thank you and go hence without day.
No comments:
Post a Comment