When did "junk" become the noun for male genitals?

I think it’s the property of male genitals to be lumpy. In this case:

2. transf. A piece or lump of anything; a CHUNK.
[Chunk may have originated under the joint influence of chuck and junk.]
1726 G. ROBERTS 4 Years Voy. 155, I..gave to each of them a short Junk of Pipe. 1764 GRAINGER Sugar Cane 1. Note 41 The stem is knotty, and, being cut into small junks and planted, young sprouts shoot up from each knob. Ibid. III. 127 The Cane..Cut into junks a yard in length. 1833 M. SCOTT Tom Cringle i. (1859) 8 A large knot in his cheek from a junk of tobacco therein stowed. 1843 MRS. CARLYLE Lett. I. 270 [He] snatched up a large pound-cake, cut it into junks. 1876 M. E. BRADDON J. Haggard’s Dau. xxiii. 243 The huge junk of single Gloucester. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Not sure, but I first heard it about 10 years ago.

I have never seen “lumpy” junk. I don’t think they are supposed to be lumpy…

I agree with @erichw1504, 10 years ago sounds about right to me. I don’t have a source to back that up, but it does sound right. And, yes, I have heard it used to describe the entire package.. not necessarily just the penis or just the testicles.

I second (third?) @erichw1504 it’s been about 10 years for me.

I don’t know, but I don’t like it. It makes it sound like the male genitalia is something gross and “junky”, which it so isn’t. :)

Yet another foiled plot of hard feminists to degrade everything male and masculine. Secretly infiltrating the comedic mind, and using them as agents to propagate the Junk meme into the collective consciousness, the male o-r-g-a-n becomes an antiquated tool, a flotsam, jetsam, jettisoned away from Goddess worshipers everywhere. I sense a disturbance in the Force. Or maybe I’m just happy to see you.

Didn’t junk, as in junk in the trunk first start referring to women’s butts about 10 to 12 years ago. I think in reference to J-Lo? Then it became more generic.

@Adirondackwannabe

By Joe I think you’ve got it. LOL

I don’t know about you but if you have that Uncle with the sagging shorts it looks more like baby birds falling out of the nest.

It just sounds better than “Steve”.

I prefer the “leaky hose”.

If you have ever stared long and hard at male genitalia – as I often have – you will know that, after a while, they begin to look like a miscellaneous assemblage of leftover parts from different machines or something. Which is to say junk.

It’s like what happens with words when you say them over and over again; they lose their meaning and all context and just become kind of ludicrous.

In anatomical and biological and evolutionary contexts, male genitalia make perfect sense, obviously. But looking at them objectively and without those frames of reference, they seem random and even almost hilariously ugly.

This is just speculation and all very amusing to me, but I am queer in more ways than one.

“If you have ever stared long and hard at male genitalia… after a while, they begin to look like a miscellaneous assemblage of leftover parts…”

Oh Rellay? Never considered that to be the case myself. I guess one mans Junk is another mans Jewel.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Or a jewel made of junk, yes, most definitely. But I am only trying to describe them by taking them out of one context and possibly placing them in another. (I am quite fond of those miscellaneous parts.)

Where did this go so disturbingly wrong?

The first time I heard it was in the 2007 movie “Juno”

Punk Receptionist: Would you like a free condom? They’re boysenberry.
Juno MacGuff: No, thanks. I’m off sex right now.
Punk Receptionist: My boyfriend wears them every time we have intercourse, it makes his junk smell like pie.

I thought junk meant big butt.

Junk – stuff that’s just lying around, not being used, taking up space. Mmmm yeh I think junk’s a good term for many human’s genetalia.