Princhester:
That might be a reference to a South Park joke. On one of the episodes, Kyle’s little brother Ike is about to be circumcised, and the kids, thinking that it meant his penis would actually be cut off, try to “save” him from this fate. When the time actually comes, the Mohel tells the kids that circumcision makes the penis appear bigger. In the final scene, all of the other kids are happily anticipating getting circumcised themselves.
I don’t believe your conclusion is based on valid or sufficient data.
And, of course, what you’d think is necessarily exactly what the ancient artists would think. It’s unthinkable they might have a different take on things, isn’t it.
I don’t get the first part of that quote, but the second part I do, and it leads me to believe that someone pissed in your Cheerios this morning.
I’ve said about five times now that I’m curious as to why they’d want to depict it as being small, if it really is depicted that way (And I think it is), and why it’d be a trend that happened only back then.
Why?
If you, and everyone else around here, believes that’s an accurate depiction of a penis, and I’m way off base here, then let me know- I’ll kill this thing straight away.
That is the LAST TIME I go to my local Italian Restaurant, and order ** penes a la vodka **. :eek:
Cartooniverse
There is certainly a lot of individual variation regarding this characteristic. You just might be luckier than most. The size certainly is smaller compared to other depictions of penises, particularly those that we are familiar with in modern American culture. But whose penises are we likely to see depicted? Those whose job it is to have a big one.
In the images you refer to, I believe that the proportions are not unusually small when it comes to real life. As far as I can tell the size is reasonably within the range of realistic proportions and is probably closer to the average size penis than the sizes of the penises we normally see depicted in popular culture.
According to Kinsey average flaccid penis size was just under 4 inches. The statue of David seems reasonable but the other statues look noticably smaller than that to me. They look to be around the one or two inch range. As has been noted, this is not always an indicator of erect size, but for flaccid states these guys are below average. I think that the greeks/romans were more interested in ideal proportions than realistic portrayals so the penis size may or may not be a depiction of the models.
I’ve spent a lot of time in areas where nude swimming sunbathing and hottubbing is the norm and this assessment lines up with my experiences.
Of course it’s possible that penis size has changed over time, people are taller now on average than they were then.
They’re small for aesthetic reasons. The standard for beauty in the classical era in Greece was the prepubescent male. Penis size increases during puberty. Extrapolating from this, the smaller your penis is the closer you are to the ideal and the more attractive you’re considered.
So if you’re trying to sculpt perfection or an ideal in the classical period your statue will have a small penis. Renaisance sculptors borrowed both forms and proportion from the classical statues. I can’t find any of these online, but there are vase paintings that show young men tying their penises back for athletic competion. (Think tucking and taping for modern male drag shows.) This was considered attractive.
Several people have mentioned this, but to summarize:
large penis=funny
small penis = attractive
For further discussion of the male beauty standards in ancient Greece (in the context of discussing sexuality) I recommend Before Sexuality by Halperin et al.
So I was in New York on business a few years ago, and a female co-worker and I decided to spend a day at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. As we were making our way through the 16th and 17th century European art exhibit, she asked me whether her opinion was true that the men in the paintings were, uh, under-endowed. She was fairly young and had a very limited sample set to base her opinion on. I made some comment about shrinkage and we moved on.
Then we got to the exhibit on African art. As soon as we walked into the door, she leaned over to me and whispered “It’s twoo, it’s twoo!”
UH-OH… :eek:
i’d definitely go with the cultural idea here. a lot of people have posted that large penis = masculinity and virility and so on and so forth. i agree that now, in this day in age, it does. but we can’t anthropomorphize and say that their cultural ideals would’ve been the same.
when i was at the louvre i was told in a tour that smaller penuses were the ideal of that age. maybe they’re scaled down so that the statues were attractive for the viewers
for another example - ever notice that the women painted by say david, or anyone in that renaissance era (i think it was renaissance anyway - around the time of louis XIV and before) were on the whole larger than the very slim (skinny) ideal nowadays? because the ideal was to be well off, to be able to afford your food and be able to have that extra fat. so they would find women with more weight attractive. so the greeks found small penuses attractive, good on them 
:eek:
DEAD
–ahem–
“'scuse me while I whip dis out…”
back to DEAD
Is that similar to ** coq au vin? ** :rolleyes:
Remarkaby similar, yes… they’re frequently found on the same kinds of menus.
Some of the statues are quite “well endowed.” Statues of satyrs, for instance, generally have proportions large enough that you would think they would fall over from the weight.
Are you sure David’s supposed to be flaccid? I mean, his dick looks pretty hard to me.
:d&r:
Damn, that so should have been “rock hard.” :smack:
Just wanted you all to know that in the Plaza de la Rinconada here in lovely Valladolid, Spain, there is a fountain that is supported by two male figures, one shoving with his shoulder, one recumbent and supporting the fountain on his back.
The first thing I noticed about these sculptures was that they were unusual in being close to my, um, size.