StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, in my opinion, the turtles were the greatest artists ever, (Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Donatello) but I was wondering, how come, in their amazing works, male genetalia is always so small?

Because you're comparing it to porno?

I'm not a porn star! But damn was that a fast response!

The smaller it is the less amount of work... i don't know,

Because if they used models, which is more than likely I think, then it's reasonably possible a bracing wind caused shrinkage.

Unless you WANT to see David with a hard on.

[EDIT] It may have been a cultural thing too. They may have liked their chicks fat and curvaceous, and their men nice and small. Maybe someone who's actually done art history can pipe in here with some interesting trivia.

maybe dicks weren´t that important to them?

Come on; Dicks have always been important to guys, always will be. You can bet your sweet bippy (What the hell does that mean, anyway?) that if any of these famous artists did self-portraits they'd be hung like horses.

Perhaps they didn't want to be shown up by their art.

It's because peniseseseseses are EVIL.
They wanted to portray the sexy parts of the male form, and penii are just not that attractive/can attract accusations of porn. So they underplayed them. The focus of the art is not supposed to be the genetalia, but the body in itself, so by making them small, your eye goes to the rest of the body.

Well, it's not just "the turtles" as you put it. The reason why dick size isn't a major issue is because all the classical artists looked back to the Greek ideal of male physical perfection. The Greeks had an idea what the perfect male physical speciman was (well worked muscles, barrel chests, some fat because if you had some fat it meant you were healthy, et cetera) . Penis size wasn't an issue when it came to physical beauty. Which is kind of funny when you consider the Greek love affair with the penis, like the Spartans and Thebians, who's male population loved the cock, as a wise drugdealer from Jersey once said.

Stofsk wrote:Because if they used models, which is more than likely I think, then it's reasonably possible a bracing wind caused shrinkage.

Unless you WANT to see David with a hard on.

Yes, I doubt the government of the city of Florence would have appreciated their symbol of independance and republican ideals to be sporting chub, even if I personally think it's very appropriate.

InnerBrat wrote:It's because peniseseseseses are EVIL.
They wanted to portray the sexy parts of the male form, and penii are just not that attractive/can attract accusations of porn. So they underplayed them. The focus of the art is not supposed to be the genetalia, but the body in itself, so by making them small, your eye goes to the rest of the body.

That makes sense, but what the hell is a penius?

During the Renaissance, most people were grow-ers, not show-ers.

Rye wrote:That makes sense, but what the hell is a penius?

A really clever penis.

Gil Hamilton wrote:Well, it's not just "the turtles" as you put it. The reason why dick size isn't a major issue is because all the classical artists looked back to the Greek ideal of male physical perfection. The Greeks had an idea what the perfect male physical speciman was (well worked muscles, barrel chests, some fat because if you had some fat it meant you were healthy, et cetera) . Penis size wasn't an issue when it came to physical beauty. Which is kind of funny when you consider the Greek love affair with the penis, like the Spartans and Thebians, who's male population loved the cock, as a wise drugdealer from Jersey once said.

Greek artists actually intentionally understated the size of the penis to further emphasize the other attributes that you mentioned and to help improve the flow of the lines of the sculpture.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Greek artists actually intentionally understated the size of the penis to further emphasize the other attributes that you mentioned and to help improve the flow of the lines of the sculpture.

...because penis size wasn't particularly important to the Greeks in terms of physical perfection. If it was important to them, it would be part of the Male Ideal. I'm not arguing with you, but I'm just saying.

Maybe, perhaps, penises just weren't that big in those times.

Dalton wrote:Maybe, perhaps, penises just weren't that big in those times.

Priapus disagrees with you...

Do all other guys exaggerate the size of their flaccid wangs? A one to three inch flaccid penis is pretty normal; it's only when they're erect that they grow to five or six inches or so - or larger in the case of pornstars.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Do all other guys exaggerate the size of their flaccid wangs? A one to three inch flaccid penis is pretty normal; it's only when they're erect that they grow to five or six inches or so - or larger in the case of pornstars.

Meh, I don't brag. Four inches is all I got...but some women like it that thick.

Robert Walper wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Do all other guys exaggerate the size of their flaccid wangs? A one to three inch flaccid penis is pretty normal; it's only when they're erect that they grow to five or six inches or so - or larger in the case of pornstars.

Meh, I don't brag. Four inches is all I got...but some women like it that thick.

Four inches is only average for girth.