8 ms·

Actually they are meant to be depicted as small for a reason, or at least this is what I was taught by multiple university professors. The reason a depiction o

by halviti 10y ago

Actually they are meant to be depicted as small for a reason, or at least this is what I was taught by multiple university professors. The reason a depiction of a smaller penis was preferred is that it was a sign of fertility. Men with smaller penises were seen as genetically more likely to be able to impregnate a woman, and thus was a desired trait at the time. From the second response on your quora link: >The ancient Greeks believed that short penises allowed the man's seed to travel a lesser distance before entering the woman's body and impregnating her. A small penis was seen as being more virile. A long penis meant the seed had further to travel, and had less chance of impregnating a woman.

zkhalique 10y ago
I heard from my professors that a smaller penis represented sophrosyne (latin temperantia) rather than great unconstrained passions, a desirable trait.
- exelius 10y ago
  This is more in line with what I had read as well. A large penis was seen as "barbaric" or "brutish", while the average cosmopolitan man (who would be able to view such statues) desired to be in control of himself. This is all in line with the teachings of Aristotle; which pretty much defined the ideal man in the western world from about 600 BC until more modern philosophers started writing in the 15th and 16th century.
  - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
    Idealizing feminine males over males with higher testosterone levels and therefore larger penises and more manly in general. No wonder Rome fell to those "barbarians". Any civilization that lacks male competition and starts favoring non competitive males, will eventually be replaced by males from parallel society where male competition is fierce. This was recently proved by "super male" model at least for fruit flies, but same population dynamics, although not so simplistic and with more variables obviously, applies to humans.
    - exelius 10y ago
      I don't know I would go as far as to say it was masculine versus feminine -- there was certainly a place in Aristotle's ideal man for athleticism and prowess in battle -- but rather defining the boundaries for genetic competition as being equal parts smart, attractive and strong. Also, as much as it sounds out of place today, classical (i.e. Greek / Roman) thinkers didn't consider women to be people - they were above slaves and animals, but it was in every way a male-dominated society. Edit: Also, to continue along the lines of your hypothesis, too much testosterone in individuals may actually be a detriment to the society as a whole. While it may serve you well on the battlefield as nomadic raiders or hunters, that same competition can lead to an increase in internal violence that destabilizes the collective. Also, you wouldn't need as many children in a city as you would on a farm (free child labor!), so increased fertility just means more mouths to feed.
      - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
        > too much testosterone in individuals may actually be a detriment to the society as a whole. That's what my point was. Civilizations rise when less aggressive males are "dominating" the sexual market, but that civilization is also vulnerable to more aggressive males and once exposed to them, it crumbles. We can also see this effect to some extent in western civilization.
        dmix 10y ago
        The Roman Empire largely fell because they were overexposed militarily. So one could equally argue that their hyper-masculinism was their downfall - not their lack of competitiveness. If they showed more prudence and were less aggressive at everyone around them they would have been better prepared for the attacks from the Goths and barbarians. Additionally, they were overextended financially as well which left them in a weak state. Over-extension is the result of highly risky behavior, which is comparable to the cowboy Wall St jockeys of the present era which are definitely a modern masculine image. Avoiding the extremes seems to be where progress is made. Being neither overly aggressive nor so weak you get walked over by the tougher kids on the block. The boring times in history were great times for economies (see 1990s, post-WW2 America), there were still some military adventurism but mostly short-lived minor disputes (Korea, Desert Storm). Modern statecraft is largely about economics today, not militarism. For example, I would doubt the US could fall from a lack of military prowess, while still totally dominating the world financial markets. Money goes a much longer way than guns and heart these days. Just look at how Russia's economy is doing these days - despite being the toughest kid on the block. Even if they succeed at war mongering it could only take them so far before the west could obliterate their citizens quality of life without firing a shot.
erikb 10y ago
The intelligence argument I can believe, the fertility argument I can't. What would the reason be that a small penis is more fertile?
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  The explanation is in the comment you're replying to. Of course it isn't an advantage, but apparently the greeks did believe that.
- bmelton 10y ago
  Without trying to be crass, a smaller penis fits into a wider array of vaginas, compared to too large a penis.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Not necessarily. You don't need to put it all in, while a big one reaches further...
    - llamaz 10y ago
      That's fair enough, for those far away women that men with small penis' would not be able to reach
    - bmelton 10y ago
      I was actually referring to girth. The vaginal canal is fairly elastic, but I've known women who complained that they were physically unable to have sex with a guy I knew because of girth.
      - Grishnakh 10y ago
        Those women were either lying or exaggerating. Woman have babies through that canal, and a baby's skull is much larger than any man's girth. There is no way these women were "physically unable" to have sex with some man. It might have been uncomfortable for them if they were especially tight, but they could have done it. This reminds me of men who claim that normal size condoms are "too small". Again, total BS. It's quite easy to blow one up like a balloon without it bursting. A larger one will be more comfortable for someone large, but the regular one will stretch to fit.

by halviti 10y ago

zkhalique 10y ago

I heard from my professors that a smaller penis represented sophrosyne (latin temperantia) rather than great unconstrained passions, a desirable trait.

exelius 10y ago
This is more in line with what I had read as well. A large penis was seen as "barbaric" or "brutish", while the average cosmopolitan man (who would be able to view such statues) desired to be in control of himself. This is all in line with the teachings of Aristotle; which pretty much defined the ideal man in the western world from about 600 BC until more modern philosophers started writing in the 15th and 16th century.
- cLeEOGPw 10y ago
  Idealizing feminine males over males with higher testosterone levels and therefore larger penises and more manly in general. No wonder Rome fell to those "barbarians". Any civilization that lacks male competition and starts favoring non competitive males, will eventually be replaced by males from parallel society where male competition is fierce. This was recently proved by "super male" model at least for fruit flies, but same population dynamics, although not so simplistic and with more variables obviously, applies to humans.
  - exelius 10y ago
    I don't know I would go as far as to say it was masculine versus feminine -- there was certainly a place in Aristotle's ideal man for athleticism and prowess in battle -- but rather defining the boundaries for genetic competition as being equal parts smart, attractive and strong. Also, as much as it sounds out of place today, classical (i.e. Greek / Roman) thinkers didn't consider women to be people - they were above slaves and animals, but it was in every way a male-dominated society. Edit: Also, to continue along the lines of your hypothesis, too much testosterone in individuals may actually be a detriment to the society as a whole. While it may serve you well on the battlefield as nomadic raiders or hunters, that same competition can lead to an increase in internal violence that destabilizes the collective. Also, you wouldn't need as many children in a city as you would on a farm (free child labor!), so increased fertility just means more mouths to feed.
    - cLeEOGPw 10y ago
      > too much testosterone in individuals may actually be a detriment to the society as a whole. That's what my point was. Civilizations rise when less aggressive males are "dominating" the sexual market, but that civilization is also vulnerable to more aggressive males and once exposed to them, it crumbles. We can also see this effect to some extent in western civilization.
      - dmix 10y ago
        The Roman Empire largely fell because they were overexposed militarily. So one could equally argue that their hyper-masculinism was their downfall - not their lack of competitiveness. If they showed more prudence and were less aggressive at everyone around them they would have been better prepared for the attacks from the Goths and barbarians. Additionally, they were overextended financially as well which left them in a weak state. Over-extension is the result of highly risky behavior, which is comparable to the cowboy Wall St jockeys of the present era which are definitely a modern masculine image. Avoiding the extremes seems to be where progress is made. Being neither overly aggressive nor so weak you get walked over by the tougher kids on the block. The boring times in history were great times for economies (see 1990s, post-WW2 America), there were still some military adventurism but mostly short-lived minor disputes (Korea, Desert Storm). Modern statecraft is largely about economics today, not militarism. For example, I would doubt the US could fall from a lack of military prowess, while still totally dominating the world financial markets. Money goes a much longer way than guns and heart these days. Just look at how Russia's economy is doing these days - despite being the toughest kid on the block. Even if they succeed at war mongering it could only take them so far before the west could obliterate their citizens quality of life without firing a shot.

erikb 10y ago

The intelligence argument I can believe, the fertility argument I can't. What would the reason be that a small penis is more fertile?

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
The explanation is in the comment you're replying to. Of course it isn't an advantage, but apparently the greeks did believe that.
bmelton 10y ago
Without trying to be crass, a smaller penis fits into a wider array of vaginas, compared to too large a penis.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Not necessarily. You don't need to put it all in, while a big one reaches further...
  - llamaz 10y ago
    That's fair enough, for those far away women that men with small penis' would not be able to reach
  - bmelton 10y ago
    I was actually referring to girth. The vaginal canal is fairly elastic, but I've known women who complained that they were physically unable to have sex with a guy I knew because of girth.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      Those women were either lying or exaggerating. Woman have babies through that canal, and a baby's skull is much larger than any man's girth. There is no way these women were "physically unable" to have sex with some man. It might have been uncomfortable for them if they were especially tight, but they could have done it. This reminds me of men who claim that normal size condoms are "too small". Again, total BS. It's quite easy to blow one up like a balloon without it bursting. A larger one will be more comfortable for someone large, but the regular one will stretch to fit.