If you’ve ever been to a museum or a gallery, you’ve probably seen a sculpture of a man with perfect abs, glutes, and pecs. Chances are he had the best body you’ve ever seen.
And more likely than not, he had a small dick!
I bet you looked at that tiny penis and smiled, silently comparing yourself to the marble edifice and coming out on top (no pun intended).
But have you ever wondered why is it that almost every ancient statue has a small dick? After all, these men are perfect in every other aspect.
Well, I have, and it turns out the reason is fascinating.
According to How To Talk About Art History, in ancient times bigger didn’t always mean better.
In fact, big dicks were generally frowned upon.
Art historian Ellen Oredsson says:
“The majority felt a big penis was synonymous with a man who was foolish, lustful, and ugly.”
Back then people believed that a smaller penis was a sign of a reasonable and intellectual man.
These ideals even found their way into ancient literature, such as Clouds by Aristophanes, where he writes:
“If you do these things I tell you, and bend your efforts to them, you will always have a shining breast, a bright skin, big shoulders, a minute tongue, a big rump and a small prick. But if you follow the practices of today, for a start you’ll have a pale skin, small shoulders, a skinny chest, a big tongue, a small rump, a big prick and a long-winded decree.”
The ancients also thought that a small prick gave the man more of a chance to use his brain.
That’s why statues such as David looked like this:
While statues of fools looked like this:
It should also be said that when sculpting became an art-form, many of the pioneers spent their time carving defined muscles, bone, and facial features rather than sexual organs.
Which is more proof that big dicks weren’t highly valued in Ancient Greece and Rome.
Yeah, things have definitely changed… What do you say?