Can we please stop talking about Jon Hamm’s sizable manhood?

Jon Hamm as Don Draper in a scene from the finale of Mad Men.Michael Yarish/The Associated Press

Penis, penis, penis. Yes, by now you've likely read the shocking, headline-grabbing news that everyone's talking about: Jon Hamm's penis needs to be reined in.

According to the New York Daily Post, who ever-so-journalistically quotes an anonymous "source," the Mad Men star was asked to wear underwear during the filming of the upcoming season, due to the overwhelming presence of his massive member.

"Jon's impressive anatomy is so distracting that they politely insisted on underwear," dished this secret source who's allegedly "close" to AMC. " It's a good problem to have."

That's right - his manhood is in a tight spot. His performance is revealing. His talent is so well-endowed, he literally cannot contain himself. Are we done with the penis puns yet?

What's shocking about this story - never mind that some newspaper stories get published with anonymous "insiders" as sources - is that real Canadian publications have picked it up, put it on their front pages, and called it news.

Even Maclean's - you know, one of Canada's premier political magazines - has put Hamm's penis on their front page. (Canada.com, and the National Post are running with it, too.)

But here's the thing: When asked for comment, Hamm's rep asked the Post to "take the high road," adding that the non-story is "ridiculous and not really funny at all."

And perhaps most disturbing? The ridiculous objectification of a serious actor's genitalia. Sure, there's no denying the carnal appeal of a dark, rugged man in a skinny tie - and sure, every single time Hamm is ever on my TV screen, I lose my breath.

But have we really become a nation of compulsive clicking toddlers, finger-pointing and yelling "look at his pee-pee!"

Imagine the gender reversal. If some magical mystery source said, "Christina Hendricks was asked to wear a girdle for her overwhelming vagina presence." Baffling, idiotic, and incredibly misogynistic - right? No newspaper would go near it.

So what's going on here?

Have we stepped back in time, reverting to the 1960s era, with a bizarro gender twist? Wherein instead of treating women like meat (a la Mad Men), we're treating the show's lead male role as, um, ham?

For fans of a show that shines a light on the exploitation of women, I'd like to think we're better than this.