I just felt compelled to share that some friends of mine went to Greece for their honeymoon. They sent me back a postcard from the temple of Priapus (from which we derive the condition of Priapism ), which also include statues of phalluses similar to the ones apparently on the island of Delos .
And so cold, too…
About ten years ago, I went on a business trip to New York with a few co-workers, one of whom was a youngish female. We had a little extra time and chose to visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art. While making our way through the centuries-old European paintings, she asked me whether, in my opinion, the nude men depicted in them seemed not very well endowed. I asked her whether she had ever heard of “shrinkage,” and she knew the Seinfeld episode that referred to.
Anyway, a couple of hours later we made it over to the section of African art in the museum. Right after we walked through the doorway, she leaned over to me and whispered “It’s twue, it’s twue!”
Obviously, the African artists were not encumbered by the Eurpean idea that the male genitals should be smallish.
To discount Greek women as “…mainly relegated to childbearing and housekeeping or sex objecthood, and … seldom heard from” seems a little shortsighted. Not that I’m a feminist or anything, but I think that Lysistrata proves that Greek women had more power than is evident at surface level. While the play definitely does relegate them to ‘sex objecthood,’ it surely precludes your claim of their having been ‘seldom heard from.’
Well, at least presumably. If they had the balls to offer an ultimatum of sex or war, you would think that were probably vocal on at least a few other issues.
Despite the depiction of tiny genitasls on their heroes, and the implication that it’s the ideal, I have to note that thyere are plenty of large genitals in Greek and Roman art, as well, and it’s not all on “comic dwarves and foreigners”. The *herms[/i[ spoken of have pronounced penises, and the Roman versions, although they covered them with carved draperies, depict pretty large ones. The arms on these often have pitchers pouring libations on the erections, calling attention to them.
There are many statues of ithyphallic Hermes/Mercury with enormous penises. Likewise, there are plenty of Priapus with oversized penises. There are also a lot of disembodied "apotropaic: phalli all over Pompeii. See the two books on Pompeiian Erotic Art that have come out.
What struck me reading this column was a conversation we were having with our Very Out Gay Friend (VOGF) not too long ago. Over a few beers we teased VOGF with some juvenile jokes about how he’d like a “nice big one” etc etc. (Hey, the beer was flowing and we’re a crude bunch sometimes, OK?)
His reply was that in fact he wouldn’t actually like nearly “as big a one” as we might expect. We inquired why, and the reponse was “Well if you were planning to put it where I was planning to put it…” :eek: :eek: :eek:
Reasonable. So I wonder if, especially in the Greek culture of male warrior-lovers, the smaller penis wasn’t desirable in part simply so it wouldn’t hurt so darn much.
When I first saw nude sculpture as a teenage boy, my first thought was, “Wow, either they’re really small or I’m huge.” They are, and I’m not.
Perhaps clever artists won favor with male patrons by portaying men with small genitalia in sculpture and paintings. Insecure patrons would compare themselves favorably to the depicted men, whom they would think of as being normal, and the good will might trickle down to the artist. The more important the subject (like Zeus), the greater the boost in pride. Just a theory.
That makes sense some of the time, as it’s true that patrons tend to be older (younger men build fortunes and those who see the end in sight are willing to spend their fortune while they still can.) In an age before Viagra, smaller penes must have been common in older men.
On the other hand, many patrons want one or more of the figures in an artwork to be based on their own features, to commemorate their own likeness.
I was disappointed that Cecil didn’t address the underlying issue of why Greek culture considered a small, thin penis with a tapered foreskin desireable in art. Anyone can observe, as Kenneth Dover apparently did, what the Greeks liked on their vases and statues, but the question at hand was, “Why?” Which I don’t think he answered.
I’d be interested in hearing the psychological reasons why a culture would go there. Is is a “boy” thing, as Dover seems to think?
Aristophanes’ play is a comedy (a very funny one, even in translation; read it if you haven’t). Like many comedies it depends on a ridiculously impossible situation for its humor.
As an example, by the end of the play the men call upon Lysistrata to make the treaty between Sparta and Athens. This scenario–a woman negotiating between states–is completely fictional; women couldn’t even vote in Greece, much less hold a political position. In short, the audience would be laughing at the idea that women could hold as much power in real life as they appear to in the play. It’s a mistake to read such action as a call to or reflection of contemporary society, much as it would be a mistake to watch “Bewitched” and infer that many women in 1960’s America had magical powers.
It’s very simple: flaccid size is not indicative of erect size. When the artists in question were working, they had no idea that future generations would be so ignorant of this fact and would judge their subjects accordingly.
Well known (gay, incidentally) sex advice columnist Dan Savage has written about this and he has coined the terms “grower” and “shower” for the two types of penis.
The former tends to be quite small when flaccid (like the famous “David” sculpture). The latter is more substantial when flaccid. The point is that when it comes to erect size, it all evens out. The average “grower” increases in size by several hundren percent during erection… thus attaining a perfectly normal erect size. The average “shower” increases by only 30% or 40%… thus, also, attaining a perfectly normal erect size.
I have read speculation that human evolution in warm climates would tend to favor “showers” while in colder areas “growers” would be better off. This would explain the disparity between the African (warm) and European (cold) artifacts.
I came across this article a day before reading Cecil’s take on Greek sculpture. I am not saying this may be an explanation for why Aristophanes found a “small prick” to be ideal, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/051208_bat_testes.html
Yes, but Lysistrata was a comedy! The women were tropes or entertainment or just however you want to consider them-- but this was not EVER a realistic solution for them!
Though, in this day and age, I would suppose there are some good feminist articles considering Lysistrata.