Ancient Romans thought big penises were ugly

Skinny Guinea

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Posts
149
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Age
34
Interesting, because this is actually the problem that real life human beings say they encounter when they have big penises.

Originally posted by Irvy@Oct 30 2005, 05:59 PM
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.
[post=356910]Quoted post[/post]​
 

Skinny Guinea

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Posts
149
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Age
34
Interesting.

This is the paradox we're dealing with. Big penises are admired, but it is often assumed that they are descracting and that people with big penises are overly sexed and sexualized. It's maybe the male version of the "dumb blonde" stereotype.

Originally posted by bigguy8565@Oct 30 2005, 09:48 PM
Hey guys...

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

j-
[post=356954]Quoted post[/post]​
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
And don't dismiss the issues of the sculptor's proclivities - didn't he have a thing for boys? The theory of "detracting from the main subject matter" also makes much sense.
 

Wave

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Age
34
Location
Cleveland (Ohio, United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Skinny Guinea@Oct 31 2005, 09:19 PM
If by "boys" you mean "males," yes, he was gay. If by "boys" you mean "male children," I'd never heard that.
[post=357173]Quoted post[/post]​


There has been some study on Michelangelo's orientation....but then again, many of the artists i know, including myself, can "swing" both ways. it's partly about freedom and curiosity and the desire to explore the unknown.

Meanwhile, i am perhaps compelled to wonder if Skinny Guniea is attempting to denigrate largeness as a way for him to come to terms with not being as 'big' as he'd like to be? "They terrify, lest they be afraid."--Tertius or some Greek philosopher guy like that.....

:nopity:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serpentlike

LuckyLuke

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
238
Age
34
Originally posted by Wave+Oct 31 2005, 09:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wave &#064; Oct 31 2005, 09:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Skinny Guinea@Oct 31 2005, 09:19 PM
If by "boys" you mean "males," yes, he was gay. If by "boys" you mean "male children," I&#39;d never heard that.
[post=357173]Quoted post[/post]​


There has been some study on Michelangelo&#39;s orientation....but then again, many of the artists i know, including myself, can "swing" both ways. it&#39;s partly about freedom and curiosity and the desire to explore the unknown.
[/b][/quote]
With respect to the alleged sexuality of Michaelangelo Buenovuto, it is indeed nothing more than speculation. The &#39;evidence&#39; consists of only two things.

1. Michaelangelo used a young male model in some of his work who was known or identified as a &#39;male prostitute&#39;.

2. Michaelangelo&#39;s name appears in the infamous listing of Florentine citizens who were named by anonymous tips as a potential sodomite. It is to be noted that over one-third of the entire male population of Florence at that time was so listed.

That is the entirety of the &#39;evidence&#39; for speculating about Michaelangelo&#39;s sexuality. Make of it what you will, but please don&#39;t say anything is &#39;proven&#39; or &#39;known&#39; because it isn&#39;t.

Btw, the &#39;evidence&#39; for Leonardo&#39;s sexuality is similarly flimsy.
 

LuckyLuke

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
238
Age
34
Originally posted by bnabottom1@Oct 30 2005, 08:12 PM
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&#39;m not as familiar with Greek literature, I don&#39;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.
[post=356842]Quoted post[/post]​
Wow. Okay, another round of &#39;debunking&#39;...

Those &#39;big-dicked&#39; fertility symbols that you refer to are Greek in origin - ancient Greece was filled with them. They symbolise Pan, btw. Rome copied them (like almost everything else about Rome).

Btw, you&#39;d be hard pressed to find a single instance of Roman art or religion that doesn&#39;t originate with the Greeks - the Vestal Virgins and the eternal flame of Rome being about the only uniquely Roman institution.

And if anyone is interested, the most notable difference between ancient Greece and ancient Rome on the issue of homosexuality was that for Romans, it was considered shameful, something only done with slaves. Amongst the ancient Greeks, to do it with a slave was considered shameful - proper relations were accepted only between two men of the same social class.
 

Irvy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
308
Media
8
Likes
186
Points
263
Age
49
Location
Peterborough (England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I don&#39;t think that Skinny is trying to denigrate largeness. If anything, whether he meant to or not, his thread has pointed out to me that how penis size has been viewed over the years has changed. Our current cultural insistance that big is better was not always so, and at many times in our history, having an average - small penis was the goal.
 

Skinny Guinea

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Posts
149
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
163
Age
34
Because this is all such a heated topic (I don&#39;t think there is anything in the world that men take more seriously than their penises&#33;), it&#39;s inevitable that egos will flare and there will be misunderstandings.

I&#39;m already "retired" from that "My New Perspective" thread, because fending off all the misinterpretations would become a second job if I let it be.

I&#39;m not denegrating men with big penises, and I do not have low self-esteem about my own size. My size is perfectly fine. I&#39;m average, and on the high end of average, actually.

Much of what I have said is meant to be taken humorously, and some have missed that.

You, Irvy, however, did understand what I was getting at: that the preference has changed over the years. There was a time when having a big penises, or at least the depiction of a big penis, wasn&#39;t the norm.

I think that something that happens with this topic is this:

1. For hung guys, everything they say about their penises is interpreted as stemming from a need to brag.
2. For us average or small guys, people interpret that everything we say on the topic is founded on jealousy and insecurity.

The truth of the matter is that I am NOT insecure about my size. Any comments I made in the past about thinking bigger men were "more man" than me, that was all meant a little bit with tongue-in-cheek (in other words, as a bit of a joke). And I have since then said that I think the penis is the symbol of man, and we are all men no matter the size --- it&#39;s just that some men are blessed to have bigger symbols than others.

It&#39;s like, I&#39;m a bit envious of guys with bigger penises, but I ultimately realize that they are NOT more "man" than me, and they didn&#39;t do anything to earn it, so it ultimately doesn&#39;t add up to much.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
The statue of David is of a young boy in his teens. Exactly what age, I don&#39;t think anyone knows. But it is definitely a boy too young to be in the regular army. I have not seen the statue personally and the pictures I have seen are full frontal and not large pictures to begin with. There seems to be pubic hair but none anywhere else. David has no beard and Jewish men didn&#39;t shave in those days.

So I have always guessed that young David is about 14 or so. Definitely not 16 to 18 years of age.

This could easily explain the boyish looking penis on the statue. The statue is of the boy David.
 

rawbone8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Posts
2,827
Media
1
Likes
295
Points
303
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Originally posted by Freddie53@Nov 1 2005, 01:04 AM
The statue of David is of a young boy in his teens. Exactly what age, I don&#39;t think anyone knows. But it is definitely a boy too young to be in the regular army. I have not seen the statue personally and the pictures I have seen are full frontal and not large pictures to begin with. There seems to be pubic hair but none anywhere else. David has no beard and Jewish men didn&#39;t shave in those days.

So I have always guessed that young David is about 14 or so. Definitely not 16 to 18 years of age.

This could easily explain the boyish looking penis on the statue. The statue is of the boy David.
[post=357264]Quoted post[/post]​

Well said Freddie. And he&#39;s holding the sling in mammoth oversized hands. Large powerful hands, powerful enough to defeat a goliath with a stone. The symbolism of the future king. Exaggeration of scale to express and tell a story.

The statue was designed to be on public display in Florence. The genitals needed to be downplayed as others have mentioned, to avoid being distracting.
 

Wave

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Age
34
Location
Cleveland (Ohio, United States)
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
right you guys are in terms of Michelangelo being aware of where the piece was going to be displayed, what the purpose of the statue was for, and that David is a teen in the statue and not completely developed as of yet.

and Skinny G. is right too...perceptions have changed about porportions, just like the feminine ideal for shapliness is not nearly as Rubenesque as it once was either. also, in Victorian times, it was considered low-brow and poor to have a suntan--it meant you were outside working in the fields all day. today, to be tanned means you are not inside working in an office, but outside enjoyting leisure.

however, Skinny G, you did not state that your purpose was to point out how perceptions have changed, at least not overtly. you contributed the information in a way that could be taken as proving a certain point about the virtues of a small penis on a site for large penises.

nonetheless, you look like a young Al Pacino and you are cute. nice eyebrows&#33;&#33;&#33;

btw, your picture makes you look like you are in a classroom teaching....

:hi:
 

AMikkell

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Originally posted by LuckyLuke@Oct 30 2005, 10:42 AM
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 &#39;modest-size&#39; 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.
[post=356787]Quoted post[/post]​

I find it intersting how idea can change over time. It seems that the penis wasn&#39;t always the symbol of masculinity that it is today. I wonder how that worked, because it is one of the more decidedly masculine traits, having one that is, so it probably was a symbol of man-hood, but if LadyLuke was correct it wasn&#39;t thought of in the way we think of it.

I also find the idea of excersise reducing penis size amusing.
 

bnabottom1

1st Like
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
4
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
148
Age
34
And if anyone is interested, the most notable difference between ancient Greece and ancient Rome on the issue of homosexuality was that for Romans, it was considered shameful, something only done with slaves. Amongst the ancient Greeks, to do it with a slave was considered shameful - proper relations were accepted only between two men of the same social class.
[post=357202]Quoted post[/post]​
[/quote]


Not to digress, but while we&#39;re on the subject of "debunking," this is a somewhat overstated and reductionist view of Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. It is simply not correct to state that Romans considered "homosexuality" (whatever that is--arguably a completely modern construct) as "shameful." They DID view a citizen assuming the PASSIVE role as being a degradation. This is not the same as saying that they viewed "homosexuality" as shameful. During most of Roman history, very little importance was attached to sex with men, SO LONG AS the "proper" roles were assumed (e.g., the citizen was always active and slaves were passive).
 

LuckyLuke

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
238
Age
34
Originally posted by Freddie53@Nov 1 2005, 05:04 AM
The statue of David is of a young boy in his teens. Exactly what age, I don&#39;t think anyone knows. But it is definitely a boy too young to be in the regular army. I have not seen the statue personally and the pictures I have seen are full frontal and not large pictures to begin with. There seems to be pubic hair but none anywhere else. David has no beard and Jewish men didn&#39;t shave in those days.

So I have always guessed that young David is about 14 or so. Definitely not 16 to 18 years of age.

This could easily explain the boyish looking penis on the statue. The statue is of the boy David.
[post=357264]Quoted post[/post]​
No. The correct name of the statue of David is "David as a young man". I&#39;ve already explained why the size of the penis is depicted as it is. Postulating that David is adolescent is preposterous.

If you want "David as a youth" I believe Donatello scuplted that one in bronze.
 

LuckyLuke

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
238
Age
34
Originally posted by bnabottom1@Nov 2 2005, 02:48 PM
Not to digress, but while we&#39;re on the subject of "debunking," this is a somewhat overstated and reductionist view of Roman attitudes towards homosexuality. It is simply not correct to state that Romans considered "homosexuality" (whatever that is--arguably a completely modern construct) as "shameful."  They DID view a citizen assuming the PASSIVE role as being a degradation.  This is not the same as saying that they viewed "homosexuality" as shameful.   During most of Roman history, very little importance was attached to sex with men, SO LONG AS the "proper" roles were assumed (e.g., the citizen was always active and slaves were passive).
[post=357644]Quoted post[/post]​
In classical Rome, sex between two male Roman citizens was considered "shameful". Sex with slaves didn&#39;t matter because slaves didn&#39;t matter. The key focus was upon social class, not the mechanics of the sex act.

Now what you might be confusing is Rennaissance Italy - where indeed the mechanics of the sex act itself became the defining concept - as long as the &#39;top&#39; was the older and and the &#39;bottom&#39; the younger one, it was tacitly accepted and was only deemed &#39;shameful&#39; if the mature citizen were the &#39;bottom&#39;. Youths were given a &#39;pass&#39; here on account of age and usually not held &#39;responsible&#39; for their &#39;crime&#39;.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Originally posted by LuckyLuke+Nov 2 2005, 11:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LuckyLuke &#064; Nov 2 2005, 11:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Freddie53@Nov 1 2005, 05:04 AM
The statue of David is of a young boy in his teens. Exactly what age, I don&#39;t think anyone knows. But it is definitely a boy too young to be in the regular army. I have not seen the statue personally and the pictures I have seen are full frontal and not large pictures to begin with. There seems to be pubic hair but none anywhere else. David has no beard and Jewish men didn&#39;t shave in those days.

So I have always guessed that young David is about 14 or so. Definitely not 16 to 18 years of age.

This could easily explain the boyish looking penis on the statue. The statue is of the boy David.
[post=357264]Quoted post[/post]​
No. The correct name of the statue of David is "David as a young man". I&#39;ve already explained why the size of the penis is depicted as it is. Postulating that David is adolescent is preposterous.

If you want "David as a youth" I believe Donatello scuplted that one in bronze.
[post=357674]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]

I don&#39;t disagree with any of your points at all. And yes it is a statue of David as a young man. Young man can refer to any age beyond age 12. To me the statue has a look of a guy in his teens. There is no beard which would be on a man past 20. Perhaps David is 16 to 18. I still think it is of David who is not at his final height and body mass. I just suspect that the guy posing for this statue was still in his teens. Perhaps the poser had a small penis. I don&#39;t think anyone knows for sure.

I do know that the social studies books just say that it is a statue of the young David. The books imply that this is a statue of David as he looked when he slew the giant.

I am not going to claim I know for sure. But I don&#39;t thnk anyone else can either.
 

LuckyLuke

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
238
Age
34
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; Nov 2 2005, 05&#58;25 PM) [post=357682]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
I don&#39;t disagree with any of your points at all. And yes it is a statue of David as a young man. Young man can refer to any age beyond age 12. To me the statue has a look of a guy in his teens. There is no beard which would be on a man past 20. Perhaps David is 16 to 18. I still think it is of David who is not at his final height and body mass. I just suspect that the guy posing for this statue was still in his teens. Perhaps the poser had a small penis. I don&#39;t think anyone knows for sure.

I do know that the social studies books just say that it is a statue of the young David. The books imply that this is a statue of David as he looked when he slew the giant.

I am not going to claim I know for sure. But I don&#39;t thnk anyone else can either.
[/b][/quote]
Hey, I&#39;m just trying to clarify what I understood to be some major &#39;errors&#39; in asserting various &#39;facts&#39; about Classical Greece and Rome - and Rennaissance Italy. I happen to have studied history fairly heavily, particularly concentrating on these two periods. The fact that I&#39;m gay means I&#39;ve given a bit of extra attention to the subject of sexuality and male penises when I&#39;m studying history.

As for the point about &#39;beardlessness&#39;, Alexander the Great started the trend of well born men shaving. That trend, while not dominant in Rome, was a powerful trend. The practice disappeared during the Dark Ages, but came back &#39;in style&#39; with the Rennaissance - which began in Italy some 150 years before Michelangelo started his artwork. Shaving went out of style again during the 19th century conservative reactionary period (i.e Victorians), but that was brief as the 20th century brought back the clean-shaved look for males.

On this basis, the absence of facial hair on the statue cannot be construed directly as evidence of the age of depiction. As far as I know, the statue depicts David at the age in which he slew Goliath. That would suggest an age of a young warrior (17-21), not a young teen. And the musculature development and proportional height very much suggests that David was in his physical prime - he certainly looks 19-21 to me.

As for the &#39;unendowed model&#39; theory, I think that ignores the whole classical artistic convention of depicting all adult males with exactly the same (modest) size penis. If nothing else, Michelangelo was a master of classical inspiration in all things artistic.

Like I said, I&#39;m not looking to really argue about the issue. I just happen to know a lot about ancient Greece and Rome and Rennaissance Italy so I figured I&#39;d offer my most considered opinion on the topic. :)
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LuckyLuke &#064; Nov 2 2005, 06&#58;19 PM) [post=357718]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; Nov 2 2005, 05&#58;25 PM) [post=357682]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
[/b][/quote]
Hey, I&#39;m just trying to clarify what I understood to be some major &#39;errors&#39; in asserting various &#39;facts&#39; about Classical Greece and Rome - and Rennaissance Italy. I happen to have studied history fairly heavily, particularly concentrating on these two periods. The fact that I&#39;m gay means I&#39;ve given a bit of extra attention to the subject of sexuality and male penises when I&#39;m studying history.

As for the point about &#39;beardlessness&#39;, Alexander the Great started the trend of well born men shaving. That trend, while not dominant in Rome, was a powerful trend. The practice disappeared during the Dark Ages, but came back &#39;in style&#39; with the Rennaissance - which began in Italy some 150 years before Michelangelo started his artwork. Shaving went out of style again during the 19th century conservative reactionary period (i.e Victorians), but that was brief as the 20th century brought back the clean-shaved look for males.

On this basis, the absence of facial hair on the statue cannot be construed directly as evidence of the age of depiction. As far as I know, the statue depicts David at the age in which he slew Goliath. That would suggest an age of a young warrior (17-21), not a young teen. And the musculature development and proportional height very much suggests that David was in his physical prime - he certainly looks 19-21 to me.

As for the &#39;unendowed model&#39; theory, I think that ignores the whole classical artistic convention of depicting all adult males with exactly the same (modest) size penis. If nothing else, Michelangelo was a master of classical inspiration in all things artistic.

Like I said, I&#39;m not looking to really argue about the issue. I just happen to know a lot about ancient Greece and Rome and Rennaissance Italy so I figured I&#39;d offer my most considered opinion on the topic. :)
[/b][/quote]
Luke,

That is what is good about good discussions. Quite often we all learn something and in the end we end up with the same basic understanding. And thank you very much for your information about the history of shaving in the Greco-Roman world and through European history.

Your point that this is at the time that David slew Goliath. And I agree with you completely. So our concepts come a lot from our background. In my case in Sunday School, David was portrayed as a young boy that slew the great giant. So in my mind that would be a boy in early to middle teens. And in the US 18 year olds form the background of our army. David was too young to fight in the regular army.

Still, we know from professional football and wrestling that an 18 year old male does not have the physical strength that he will have at age 25. And puberty is not the same for all. Some start early and some actually don&#39;t start until age 16. We know nothing about any of that in the real story of David.

So that brings us to the Michelangelo&#39;s statue of David which of course comes from Michelangelo&#39;s mind. David himself I&#39;m sure didn&#39;t shave. But this is not the historic David, but Michaelangelo&#39;s concept of David which is Renaissance.

You are probably right about the penis size. From my background I just assumed that it was a teen David who may have not reached his full penis size. And from what I have read some guys (rare) still have penis growth past age 18. And we don&#39;t know about male puberty norms back in those days either.

I have really appreciated your comments to this and I have learned a lot.

I now believe that the real David was somewhere past 14 but not yet 18. But the real guy that posed for this statue was probably somewhere between ages 16 and 21. Most probably either 18 or 19 or he looked those ages.
 

B_DoubleMeatWhopper

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2002
Posts
4,941
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
268
Age
45
Location
Louisiana
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Freddie53 &#064; Nov 2 2005, 09&#58;56 PM) [post=357754]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
So that brings us to the Michelangelo&#39;s statue of David which of course comes from Michelangelo&#39;s mind. David himself I&#39;m sure didn&#39;t shave. But this is not the historic David, but Michaelangelo&#39;s concept of David which is Renaissance.
[/b][/quote]

There is one detail that makes it obvious that Michelangelo deviated from history in order to present his ideal: the penis on the statue of David is uncircumcised&#33;