4 ms·
From a friend who studied "classics" as a degree, the Greeks thought massive schlongs were comical and bestial, as well as stole focus from the musculature and
by huffmsa 10y ago
From a friend who studied "classics" as a degree, the Greeks thought massive schlongs were comical and bestial, as well as stole focus from the musculature and overall balance of the art.
Rome on the other hand considered itself a masculine nation, who's roads were broad and straight, never turning for nature.
Not that the Greeks couldn't have fun, they used statues with erect penises as road signs in Athens, famously knocked off by Alcibiades (in fact he was framed by a rival ) the night before the invasion of Sicily.
The David is a statue of a 14 year old, in addition to the reasons given in the article.
- lingben 10y agoAlso in classical times the 'seat of power' for men was not the penis but the testicles. Today we equate masculinity and virility with a large penis, but to the Greeks and Romans a large penis had no such connotation. When you think about it, it makes sense from a biochemical perspective. Without the male testes a man can not produce testosterone which is the key hormone that regulates growth, muscle mass, aggressiveness, competitiveness, vitality, etc. So it is understandable to think that a larger pair of testes would make you 'more' of a man and a smaller set, less. Not sure when exactly this change occurred in Western culture but it would be the more interesting question to try to answer.