Originally posted by HungSpermBoy+Jan 16 2005, 02:48 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HungSpermBoy @ Jan 16 2005, 02:48 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Dec 3 2004, 11:47 AM
Ashlar, that is an interesting thought. Orca probably got it right, though. I think women are okay to be seen as beautiful, just not important. Oddly enough, even "those pesky greeks" most portrayed male nudes with fairly small penes. I wonder if even way back then this was a sign of how much men didn't want to believe one bigger than their own existed?
[post=265806]Quoted post[/post]
I just read about this "penis" thing and the Greek statues for one of my classes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the Greeks had the idea that beauty was a balance between the higher faculties and the animal instincts. Kinda similar to the christian idea. They gave the male statues small penises because they wanted to emphasize the higher faculties of reason and they thought that big cocks were gross. Well, something like that. :huh:
[post=274884]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]
Classic sculptures made a habit of creating the male form with a smaller endowment because they did not want their piece to be focused upon purely as a sexual creation. They wanted to represent an action, a deed, or an idea, while often showing that sexuality played a part in everything. It was this action, of the piece that is most important, and artists went to greath lenths not to oversexualize their subjects or ideas. Often with male sculpture you'll find that the penis has been broken off, this is not always due to the wear a tear of time. Artists would INTENTIONALLY break off the phallus of their sculpture to prove a point. Next time you have a look at a sculpture of a nude male figure with the penis broken off, think about the possability that perhaps the artist intentionally broke it off, and see how it suddenly changes your perception and idea about the piece itself.