Jimmyman51: This is somewhat related - but on the opposite spectrum. There has been increasing usage by lawyers of a tactic now called "small penis defense."
And, no, this isn't a joke.
When men are accused of indecent exposure, one way to get out of it is to prove that the accuser didn't really see the man's penis, or more usually, that it was too small to be seen from a distance.
Recently in Pennslyvania, a painter working in a woman's home was arrested after she called the police and claimed he had purposely let his erect penis "dangle out of his jean shorts leg."
In court - most likely very embarrassing - his attorney began his defense by saying her client's penis was too small to even come close to dangling out of his cut-off shorts. To prove this, he was required by the judge to expose his soft penis to the jury. (During jury selection, possible jurists were told they'd be subjected to male frontal nudity.)
The lawyer also had her client's erection photographed, as well as measured, and those were both also entered into evidence as proof he wasn't big enough to dangle out of the shorts.
The man was found not guilty and cleared.
In a similar case in Wisconsin, a man who lived on a lake liked to sunbathe nude on his dock. The nearest neighbor (1/4 mile away) called police and said she could see his penis.
During court, the man's attorney presented a defense that his client's penis was 3" soft, and that from a quarter mile away, it wouldn't even be visible. Furthermore, he added statistics that from that distance, his client's penis would have to be minimum 10 inches long to even be slightly visible.
He, too, was acquited.
So, sometimes may be good to be smaller!