“A Davenport man on trial for three charges of indecent exposure tried to defend himself by having his wife testify that he is not well-endowed enough for a female postal worker to have seen his penis from about 35 feet away… according to police affidavits and Assistant Scott County Attorney Julie Walton, Neece was not wearing pants, had an erection and stood either in the doorway of his home or in his open garage doorway about 35 feet from the female postal worker as she placed letters in the mailbox. His wife, Sheila Neece, told the jury that, from a physical standpoint, her husband is not very well-endowed and simply could not have been seen from that distance. The coupleís children were in the courtroom when she testified.” — Quad-City Times (US)

Certainly there is a simple and scientific way to test this claim. Why didn’t they pace off thirty-five feet and have the guy expose himself to the jury? If they can see his sausage, he’s lying and probably guilty. If not, then not. So why didn’t they do it? Did prudery take precedence over objective examination?

Anyway, when you think about it, you have to wonder what the real crime is here. If the guy was standing in the doorway of his house or garage, is that really — legally — exhibitionism? Morally, it seems less objectionable that he exposed himself across an acknowledged distance than that he got his wife to discuss his penis size in front of their children. The postal worker may have felt uncomfortable, but it’s hard to believe she’ll be psychologically traumatized in any real way. And you can’t say the same for the poor kids, who must be utterly humiliated.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.