173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
173 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
17487 readers
965 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They had big feet?
True if big
First we need to spend 100k on researcher and publish at least 20 articles.
But yes, big feet.
Publish or perish, amirite?
Publish, perish, or podiatrist.
And maybe hung? :)
Foot size is not particularly correlated to dick size- and wouldn’t have necessarily been a boon if he were. Apparently Roman woman preferred smallish dicks. (Which is why all the Roman statues of gods were lacking by today’s standards.)
iirc large dicks were seen as brutish and savage by everyone, as if you had no control over your primal, animalistic urges and just wanted to fuck all the time. small pp = civilized.
And this is also why 'black people have big dicks' is a historical stereotype. Sure they have big dicks, like horses or cattle...
And it's a weird thing where people now think it's a 'positive' stereotype
I remember a Man U chant about a player having a big dick - anti-racism organisations called it out and the chanters were shocked. It's a 'positive' thing, right?
History is kinda weird and very racist
there's a conversation to have regarding reclaiming oppressive words and ideas, but it has to be driven by those being oppressed in order to really work and be felt by society as a whole as acceptable
Ah, yes, the noted chastity and puritanism of the Roman elite...
people are corrupt. the Romans were no different in being hypocrites
@rumschlumpel@feddit.org
https://lemmy.world/post/30636168/17411150
Iirc high libido was also seen as a feminine trait
I can see it. the underlying principle is control of oneself so anything that implies otherwise was faux pas/taboo
It was also that men were seen as interacting intellectually and sexual desire was associated with women.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was partly due to men not being very involved in the domestic world. Like it makes sense, so much of expectations on women even today revolves around children, so a stereotype that women are horny as fuck as well makes a certain sense to include there.
Though I'll admit I'm thinking of Greece right now and this stereotype may have been one that didn't spread to Rome.
The Greeks regarded big dicks as immoderate and therefore barbaric. The Romans, on the other hand, were more welcoming, though they seem to have still regarded them as comical. There are Roman statues of men with massive schwantzes. Greek sculpture depicted small winkies, unless they were showing satyrs or similar mythical monsters.
Among other cryptids