Ancient Romans thought big penises were ugly

[Skinny Guinea]

My best friend, the one with 10 inches, told me he used to laugh about how small David is. Of course, I never thought he was "small" because that's about my size on a cold day.

Anyway, the reason David has such a "small" penis is because the Romans thought that big penises were ugly and embarrassing.

So, take that you size queens and big-dick-having-motherfuckers! :evilgrin:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flash...s/david_big.jpg

(Okay, okay, I know I'm getting bitchy here. I'm logging off now. Please take this message with the good humor with which it was intended. )

 

[bnabottom1]

Actually the ancient Romans did admire big penises. (The Ancient Greeks thought they were hideous.) The statue of "David" wasn't produced in ancient Rome, it was produced in Renaissance Florence, by Michaelangelo.
But you're right--he's not all that well hung!

 

[Skinny Guinea]

Yes, I know when it was produced. But to my understanding, it was produced in accordance with the tastes of the ancient Romans, whom I believe did think that big penises were ugly. I think that was the belief in all of ancient Rome and Greece as well. The point here being: big penises have not always been the ideal! :toast:

 

[Skinny Guinea]

Actually, I may be getting a few things mixed up. Maybe it was Michelangelo himself who didn't really like big penises. And when you think about it, a "David" with a big penis would look rather ridiculous. It would detract from the overall continuity of the body.

If you look at most of Michelangelo's works, they almost exclusively depict men with small penises. Look at the small weenie on Adam in the Sistine Chapel. This poor penis looks like it is just fuckin' exhausted, drained of all energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Creation_of_Adam.jpg

 

[rob_just_rob]

On that note...

If you look at Raphaelite (1700s, 1800s), and even earlier paintings, it's apparent that the feminine ideal was a lot, shall we say, heavier than it is now. Hell, even if you go back to the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe, the sex symbol of the time, would be considered overweight compared to today's sex symbols (Kate Moss/Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan etc).

I gather that slim women were undesirable in the 1700s and earlier because that meant they were poor - they had to work, and never got enough to eat. At least, that's my hazy recollection from university.

Standards do change, for both men and women.

 

[Pecker]

As fashion goes so does the hem
Of skirts from short to long.
The Romans did the self same thing
But centered on the dong.

 

[BuffMusicIdol]

Yes, it was the Greeks who thought penises should be small. However, all the Greeks I've known were no smaller than 8" and usually around 10". So what is small to the Greek ideal, may be big to most. Who knows. The Romans copied lots of Greek philosophy and their myths, therefore, most were captivated by the ideas of Greek society.

I have a friend who is kind of hung, who doesn't care much for big penises. He says the little ones are "cute." However, oddly enough, he is an artist, and an excellent one at that. He was my bodybuilding buddy for a while. When he refers to Michaelangelo, his work, David, Adam etc., he chuckles, points and says, "What's that little flap of skin right there?"

Don't tell me he isn't concerned about size. But I have learned that he believes proportions are better than size itself. He is "sculpting" his body, he says. I think proportions are what give beauty in everything, and that's why I also believe Michaelangelo's works seem slightly disproportionate because of the DE-emphasis of size on the penis. Proportionate to the size of the body would be much nicer.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[LuckyLuke]

Good gosh this topic is hilarious!

1. As far as anyone knows, there is no significant difference in penis size since the time of ancient Greece and Rome. Nor is there any significant penis size difference amongst the European nations today.

2. The peoples who inhabit Greece and Italy (and call themselves Greeks or Italians) today are (genetically) most certainly not the same people who lived there in ancient or classical times. Indeed, modern Greeks and modern Italians are far closer to each other in blood than either of them are to the ancient or classical Greeks and Romans.

3. The ancient Greeks, as a matter of an 'artistic convention' always portrayed the penis in art in as a 'modest size' for a variety of cultural reasons. Not the least of which was to assert that they were making art, not pornography.

Further, it was a commonplace observance amongst the ancient Greeks that large penises were most often found on skinny and un-athletic males and thus, a 'modest-size' was associated with those with the finest manly physiques - that is to say, closest to the Greek ideal of beauty. Indeed, the ancient Greeks thought that vigorous exercise decreased the size of the penis.

As an example of the asserted existance of large penises at that time, one only has to look to the Satyricon, assembled for the Emperor Nero.

4. Michaelangelo's David is a 'rennaissance' artwork that takes classical Greek sculpture as its model and inspiration - thus it follows the Greek convention of a 'modest-sized' penis. Indeed, the 'modest size penis' is a hallmark of rennaissance artworks as it was of classical Greece.

I hope this clears the issue up.

 

[CUBE]

small penis statue is not about accurate size in these depictions. It is the focus of the subject that takes priority. Sensuality in the form is different than the arousal.

 

[B_RoysToy]

. . . and interesting thoughts they are, Buffone! You've told us the Greeks you've known were no smaller than 8 inches and usually around 10. I bet I'm not the only reader who wonders how many you've known -- approximately will suffice. Sorta mind-boggling, to say the least :alert:

Luke

 

[D_that's a tall order]

Originally posted by Skinny Guinea@Oct 30 2005, 04:15 AM
Anyway, the reason David has such a "small" penis is because the Romans thought that big penises were ugly and embarrassing.

[post=356695]Quoted post[/post]​

Dick size aside, we should give acknowledgement to David's physique, which is about as close to the ideal as I can imagine. I imagine that was well-received by the public. I wonder who modeled for it?

 

[hippyscum]

Maybe David was a grower?

 

[bnabottom1]

Just to clarify my earlier comment--it may be a little simplistic to say that the Romans "admired" big penises. To be more precise, the Romans admired masculinity and had a very hierarchial understanding of sexual relations. Large penises (either by themselves or attached to mythological creatures) were often used as talismanic fertility decorations in Roman households. In Greek art, large penises were considered to be more grotesque. In Roman history and literature there are many references to "hung" men--usually admiring and envious comments. While I'm not as familiar with Greek literature, I don't think there is quite the same line of references. Anyway, it is an interesting subject. I think several articles and maybe a book have been published about the role of the phallus in Roman art and culture, for those who may want to explore this further.

 

[Dr Rock]

according to ancient greek stereotyping, a large penis was believed to indicate a homosexual "bottom." no, seriously.

 

[Skinny Guinea]

Originally posted by bnabottom1@Oct 30 2005, 01:12 PM
Large penises (either by themselves or attached to mythological creatures) were often used as talismanic fertility decorations in Roman households.

[post=356842]Quoted post[/post]​

These talisman were called "fascinum," and it's from these talisman that the word "fascinating" was derived.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Oct 30 2005, 03:58 PM
according to ancient greek stereotyping, a large penis was believed to indicate a homosexual "bottom." no, seriously.

[post=356849]Quoted post[/post]​

Of course. A small penis is much easier to insert into a tight, clenching sphincter. Ancient Greek writings describing incidents of anal intercourse ... and there are quite a few ... never mention stretching the rectum digitally before introducing the penis as is commonly practised nowadays. When going to it dry, a big cock tends to be an inconvenience.

 

[Irvy]

According to my art history lessons, regardless of how well hung the guy posing was, the finished painting or sculpture would have a small penis. The way it was explained to me, a large penis would have attracted the attention of the viewer more, and would become the focus of the piece of art. A small, less obtrusive penis would just become a part of the whole, and not stand out.

 

[jonb]

A big penis draws your attention too easily, hence the de-emphasizing of it.

 

[BlastOff123]

If the topic of penis size in the ancient world is interesting, whatever you do, read The Perfumed Garden, esp. in the Richard Burton translation (not the actor). He translated this along with The Arabian Nights and the ancient Arabs were certainly not as hateful towards sex as today's Islamofascists.

 

[bigguy8565]

Hey guys...

actually, the small penis on statues of classic origin or (its revival) the renaissance indicated control over desire, a heroic ideal

j-