Take the statue of David, for instance. Take a look at Zeus throwing a thunderbolt (There are tons more out there, but my knowledge of classical art featuring men’s penises is woefully lacking).
Now these are strapping young men who for all intents and purposes are in the prime of their lives. They’re depicted as strong, full of live, and at times, all powerful beings. Yet one peek at their pecker and I bet most people are thinking, ‘Huh?’.
I mean, seriously, why would these artists take all that time and effort to make these guys look all strong and powerful, and dominate as all get out, and then skimp on their willy?
Not sure about mosaics or paintings, but there are a lot of statues that have no penis, because it’s been snapped off. Some sculptors deliberately desgined them with a small pecker to ensure it wasn’t broken off.
However, that’s mainly just a guess (WAG, is it? I’m not up to date on the SDMB terms).
Actually, they don’t appear to be all that small. Now, if the only time one examines a penis it is being taken out to urinate or to be aroused, one will note a generally longer appearance, but when one’s thoughts are totally removed from the region, the penis does generally “retract” quite a bit.
(Plus, in the photo of the David statue, it is a bit foreshortened by being viewed end on.)
No way am I about to disagree with tomndebb, but I had a humanities teacher once who claimed that Greek art was like this because the Greeks considered a large phallus to be humorous, and their art was supposed to be austere. Perhaps the classical artists borrowed this idea from them.
Also, the statues were meant to be viewed as specimens of ideal athleticism, rather than manhood. My WAG is that male statues were only equipped with a larger member when they were meant to represent fertility (eg Priapus). In a sense the whole statue is meant to be an enormous phallus, with the emphasis on solidity, readiness and, er, uprightness. Er, if you see what I mean. In which case, putting a willie on another willie would be a silly idea.
And a theatre professor of mine once said that in the Greek theatre, the person playing the “fool” role wore something like an oversized phallus to indicate his stupidity, the idea being he was therefore closer to animals and les human.
Well, those portrait sculptures with the bust on the top and genitals set in the base of a pillar seem, um, not inadequate (even if the overall image of a dorm refrigerator with a head and a set of wedding tackle may seem weird to our eyes)
According to a book i once read about homosexuality as prtrayed in Greek vase painting, Achenar is right. Small penises were considered beautiful, perhaps because they were youthful like the desireable young boys and not large and pendulous like old men.
(Y’know, there was a thread about this, but I can’t find it)
I’m secure enough in my manhood to say that my Mr. Happy is quite tiny when not aroused. But when it counts, I have to avoid certain positions or else Wifecat gets a bumped ovary. Just because YOU have a penis that is half the length un-erect as when erect, does not mean that everyone else does. Telescoping peni are quite common. Maybe ol’ David was such a man.
Then again, maybe he just had a small dick and all of the other reasons apply.
This could also segue into the cultural aspect of penis size. Aren’t there 3 sizes of condoms in Japan? Would something like that ever sell in the States? Yeah, they have Magnums, but would any red-blooded American buy Mini’s? Even if they would fit better? Nah. Never happen. So take that cultural difference and apply a couple of millenia to it…
-Tcat
If you want to see huge phalluses in Greek and Roman art, look for satyrs or sileni or the god Priapus. But, as stated above, these are all figures of fun – nobody took Priapus seriously, so maybe the idea of small = dignified has a lot to recommend it.
Is anyone else having a problem with the title of this thread?
Because I am. It seems so… inadequate.
Shoot.
I’m following those that say that smaller penises were more prized back then (And the fact that many weren’t circumcised must be a part of it too), and the artists were simply following along on that tradition.
OK. That makes sense.
But it begs the question, why? Why would they be enamored with emaciated members, and inimical towards imp dinks?
Maybe they’re just being accurate. When unaroused, penises can become quite small. And perhaps emphasising a large penis would add an element of sexual arousal that perhaps was not the focus of these sculptures, unlike the herms, satyrs, etc.
