why are men in statues always so SMALL?

damn. poor honkeys.



------------------------
"Cracka-lacka SHING!"

Actually that's not the actaul size they have the real pieces in drawers in the museums. I saw a documentary on it. I think to preserve it or something like that.
All of them are categorized and labeled and stuff.

It comes from ancient Greece. Because men desiring boys was part of the culture, the ideal penis was seen as small and so an aesthetically pleasing male statue had a small penis. The Romans copied that and we, of course, copied both them and the Greeks.

Because men desiring boys was part of the culture, the ideal penis was seen as small and so an aesthetically pleasing male statue had a small penis. While you are basically quite correct that it all derives from Greece, I don't quite buy your equation that the small penis was accepted as ideal because it was the most desireable, as a result of prevalent boy-love (paiderastia).

Bearing in mind that satyrs were often portrayed with oversized willies, and were viewed as either comic or dangerously over-sexed, it would seem to me more likely that the ideal of the small penis in some way represented the idea of a controlled, civilised, well-mannered and "tasteful" sexuality; sexuality appropriate for responsible citizens, as opposed to the uncontrolled order-threatening lechery of the sub-human bestial satyr. These statues were, after all, not just representing sexually desirable bodies, pin-ups provided by the state for general titilation; they were representations of idealised heroes, men whose civic responsibility kept sexual desire under control. Big willies effectively represented negative sexuality: out-of-control animalistic sexuality; smaller willies represented a more civilised, civic sexuality.



Call me Ishmael...

Well, why is female body hair seldom if ever represented in art. It's not that no men (or women) are attracted to female body hair, obviously.

Public art represented the human form in an idealised, restrained way. It was meant to titilate, perhaps, but it was not meant to excite, the way pornography might.

Famous historical characters were seldom depicted with a paunch, either. It was all part of an elegant stylisation, like shaving and combing your hair before having your picture taken.












Scostatevi profani! Melpomene son io...

I realise there was a typo in my previous post.. I left out a crucial "not"..:
These statues were, after all, not just representing sexually desirable bodies, pin-ups provided by the state for general titilation; they were representations of idealised heroes...


Call me Ishmael...

As they were no doubt using live models; maybe the room was too cold.

Also, small would not break off so easily, as you will find many broken noses in ancient portraiture.