Size matters? (Yes, THAT kind of size)

New study confirms that when it comes to male anatomy, "size does matter" Computer-generated male figures were shown to Australian women Overall body figure is still most important, but males with bigger appendages were rated higher

Editor's note: Each week in "Apparently This Matters," CNN's Jarrett Bellini applies his warped sensibilities to trending topics in social media and random items of interest on the Web.

(CNN) -- Abraham Lincoln once said, "In life, what counts is the size of a man's heart, not the size of his disproportionate willie."

Lo, there was an awkward moment of silence among those standing in the open shower at the old White House CrossFit gym, as the 16th president nervously added, "I'm serious, guys. That's what counts. Seriously."

"Apparently This Matters" Is Jarrett Bellini's weekly (and somewhat random) look at social-media trends.

But despite Lincoln's largely unknown and forgotten "Wee-man-cipation Proclamation" -- which I may have just completely made up -- a recent study appears to have proven this belief scientifically incorrect.

Yes, gentlemen, when it comes to the preference of heterosexual women, perhaps our worst fear is true.

Size does matter.

At least according to a new study that quickly found its way around the Internet.

Because, of course it did.

We like this kind of stuff -- anything about genitals or cats. Whereas, if they found a cure for cancer, maybe six people would give it a tweet.

"They cured cancer. But check out this cat! LOL. #Kitteh"

You're all weirdo sinners. And I like that.

The big buzz about this study started when research results appeared this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Which is one of those fancy journals where normal people understand about every 15th word. And even fewer if you cheated your way through Mr. Ware's high school physiology and anatomy class.

"Psst. What bone is this?"

"Dude, Bellini, that's not a bone. That's your pencil."

The point is that it's a super-science-y journal. And it's difficult to read. But, on the plus side, for those of us more intellectually suited to watching a good episode of "Cops," if you sound out the publication's acronym, PNAS, it makes a delightfully funny word that brings us right back to the topic at hand.

Package size. And why it matters.

Brian Mautz, an American biologist now at the University of Ottawa, was the lead author of the study, and conducted his research while in Australia. Which I believe completely invalidates the results.

Not for any particularly scientific reason, but it helps me sleep at night.

Even Conan O'Brien took solace in the technicality: "The Good news? My wife isn't Australian."

Regardless, just how does one come to a scientific, unbiased conclusion on the importance of large manhood? You know, without mixing in other result-skewing personal features like a lush ginger beard and a bald head.

Those kind of horrible things.

Well, that's where the computer models come in.

Down in Australia, 105 lucky ladies were asked to rate the sexual attractiveness of about 50 life-sized computer-generated, naked male figures with different body structures. Some were tall. Some were short. Some were thin. Some of them may have been John Candy.

(Full images of the figures here. Warning: Featureless, gray full-frontal)

We'll never know, because the gray-colored figures did not possess any other features. Just unique body types and varying amounts of Speedo filler.

The figures were then projected on a screen so the women could rate them from 1 to 7. Which absolutely bothers me. All rating scales should go to 10. I'm a metric guy, and it's just the natural order of things.

Especially when it comes to rating attractiveness. Otherwise, there's not enough wiggle room for minor beauty flaws.

Like fuzzy earlobes. Always a three-point deduction.

But never mind such little things. For these women, overall height and body shape seemed to be the most important factors. Which isn't a big surprise.

However, a man's nether region was definitely an important factor. And as the overall size down below increased, so, too, did the sexual attractiveness scores.

The women also spent more time actually staring at the goods.

Which is so rude. Hello? Our eyes are up here!

Just kidding. Enjoy the view. We'll just watch some baseball.

But here's the thing. For taller men, size was even more important. Quite simply, it's a matter of proportion. When your canvas is bigger, Waldo is harder to find.

That said, if it actually LOOKS like Waldo, you need to see a doctor. Today, if they can schedule you in.

(But put it on Reddit first. They're into that. Mega up-votes!)

Now, for shorter men, being bigger downstairs was also important. But only when compared to other short men. If you bring a taller man into the mix, not even an actual Ponderosa Pine will help you compete.

Though you might make it on TV.

Sadly, even if the tall guy has but a sapling, he still has the advantage. So long as he's fit. Because, under these scientific conditions, that's still the biggest factor. Body shape.

Fortunately, though, humans aren't computer-generated gray figurines projected on walls. We have skin. And hair. And courtside seats to the Lakers.

And that's what really counts.

Just as long as you don't have fuzzy earlobes.