OK. So he's hung more like a pony than like a horse, and moreover his penis is all of a piece with his testicles, so he might not even be UP to the challenge...but is there a straight woman or gay man on this board who'd refuse to check him out (all in the name of science, natch!) if he suddenly came to life?

National Lampoon magazine had a test once, that involved a picture of the statue and "circle the part(s) that you think are out of proportion." <BR>Actually, the art books will tell you that Michealangelo deliberately made the HEAD and HANDS excessively large for the rest of the body. No mention of other parts, which as has been pointed out, are comparable to other sculptures. It is notable that unless you stop and look carefully, the disproportion is not obvious. The larger hands and head emphasize the "power" of the figure. (Go figure!).

The only proportion of David's that I'd like to check out is the important one the artist omitted: the size of his wallet.

Who knows what it could be if David were "uplifted". I'm always amazed at what looks small just "hanging" around is quite nice once standing "up".

So what is it, ladies? Penis size important or what?

No. You are all exactly the same, except for technique. Sorry.

Yeah but check out the size of his hand...now what could make his hand that big except come good old dong flogging?

Everyone knows the biggest sex organ is between the ears... not between the legs.

Now everyone here, please excersize your imagination and visualize whatever size you prefer. <BR>Where would you look at seeing the sculpture? You would glare only there. <BR>It's my personal opinion that Michelangelo intentionally downplayed this part to highlight the body itself. <BR>Everyone looks there first, but then you have the chance to notice the rest - the whole body that is amazingly beautiful.On my scale it's the best sculpture I have ever seen. <BR>And for those who are really interested, usually there is a corellation between hands and that significant part, which to me is another proof that Michelangelo did it on purpose.

There was another post talking about why female bodies were less graphicly portrayed than male and that seems to have been removed... I can't help wondering why that one was removed and this one remains. <BR> <BR>(Just so that I'm not misunderstood, I'm not offended by anything anyone has said here; I think it's been kind of amusing.)

To: Nope, Re: "I think he was deliberately trying to play down the sexuality of David, in order to emphasize that the encounter between David and Goliath was not sexual." <BR> <BR>Interesting thought, but why on earth would people have assumed the encounter between David and Goliath was sexual? There's not even a hint of that in the story, is there? Furthermore, I'd think if Michaelangelo wanted to emphasize what happened between David and Goliath he might have sculpted David in a more "action-oriented" pose, like Bernini did with his David (in the Borghese Gallery in Rome.) <BR> <BR>To: Larisa, Re: "It's my personal opinion that Michelangelo intentionally downplayed this part to highlight the body itself." <BR> <BR>Another interesting thought, but isn't a penis an integral part of a man's body itself? Most, if not all, of us guys would certainly feel that way. :~)

Here's what the art historians at Cornell have to say about David's proportions... <BR> <BR>Artists frequently take liberties with the natural proportions of the human body to achieve their expressive goals. An example is Michaelangelo's David, in which distortions of proportion are used by the artist to depict both the youthfulness of the boy David, together with the power of the hero about to conquer the giant Goliath.

What Art History Student said is the same idea, but in better words. <BR>Capo, it is the most integral part in life, but here we have art and probably censorship. <BR>And by the way, assuming that Michelangelo gave David the part up to the knee, how many men would feel happy and adequate next to him? <BR>And what if one unhappy man cuts it off (or orders to cut it off, if in position, pope, for example)? Isn't it safer this way? <BR>Have you seen the sculptures found in Pompei and now on display. <BR>Trust me it was not a beautiful sight, and males on the tour had not been happy at all. <BR>

SHRINKAGE!!!!!

I agree with art history dude. As David himself reportedly said: I may have the weenie of a 12 year old but I've got the hands to kick your ass, Goliath!

Are you sure he said exactly "kick your ass"?? <BR>Because that's what my son says, I am pleased to know, David was speaking the same way too.

Hmmm, what did happen to the site that was here about women not being graphically depicted? All this talk about maleness instead.....

if all you have to talk about is the six=ze of david's pecker then you have too much time on your hands. go do something useful with your life-volenteer, work in a food kitchen. it tdakes alll kinds to make up this world

Larisa, Re: "And by the way, assuming that Michelangelo gave David the part up to the knee, how many men would feel happy and adequate next to him?" <BR> <BR><I>Up</I> to his knee? You mean it was growing out of his foot? If that's the case, I'd bet David <I>scared</I> Goliath to death! :~)

Sorry, typo. I meant "down". <BR>You got me here. But I still promote the idea that he highlighted the beauty of the body, and he did an awesome job. <BR>The sculpture of David is a perfection, even though someone mention it as an overrated hype. <BR>Never argue about tastes, they do differ. <BR>