[T]here's the other implication: That having a penis is a sign of power, that not having one is a sign of powerlessness, that penises are nature's way of signifying a totally-not-abused person. An ad which means to tell us that men can be abused, and that this is serious and deserving of attention, is equating penises with invulnerability and the lack of them with victimization. It ends up reinforcing the same gender dynamics it protests. People who have dicks aren't abuse victims; people who are abuse victims don't have dicks. Being a man without a penis is terrible, largely because it makes you like all those other natural-born victims out there with a reputation for dicklessness. You know: Women.