• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pornographic David

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
. . . But it's unsettling that you were so fixated on it that you noticed a nuance that suggests of quasi-pornographic interest, focus, and examination. :cool:

Btw, Moses had to be threatened before he was circumcised. And in some senses David is more Trumpian than Moses. I can imagine David keeping every little bit of an organ he never took for granted. Just ask Bathsheba. She would know.
I believe David was as handsome as the statue carved by Michelangelo.
And that's what matters.
The Italian artist had no idea what circumcision was because Jews have always been very secretive about their practices.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I believe David was as handsome as the statue carved by Michelangelo.
And that's what matters.
The Italian artist had no idea what circumcision was because Jews have always been very secretive about their practices.

Michelangelo was both an artistic genius and also a very devout Christian. So he would've known about circumcision. I suggest he may have considered leaving the covering as a sign that he wasn't going to meddle with a pornographic gun, or bullet, without its full metal jacket. He wasn't being girlish he just didn't want his image ending up in Playgirl.

Fwiw, your statement, and Michaelangelo's image, implies its not size that matters after all. Or else maybe his David actually is circumcised but his nakedness is because he just got done swimming in a frozen lake in the Adirondack? From an artistic standpoint what would be easier than making little marble hairs stand on end (to affect the idea of the statue freezing to death) would be to chisel an inverted ithyphallic image implying more or less the same thing. How was he to know it would be read as uncircumcision by the circumcision and those called the uncircumcision?



John
 
Last edited:

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Michelangelo was both an artistic genius and also a very devout Christian. So he would've known about circumcision. I suggest he may have considered leaving the covering as a sign that he wasn't going to meddle with a pornographic gun, or bullet, without its full metal jacket. He wasn't being girlish he just didn't want his image ending up in Playgirl.

Fwiw, your statement, and Michaelangelo's image, implies its not size that matters after all. Or else maybe his David actually is circumcised but his nakedness is because he just got done swimming in a frozen lake in the Adirondack? From an artistic standpoint what would be easier than making little marble hairs stand on end (to affect the idea of the statue freezing to death) would be to chisel an inverted ithyphallic image implying more or less the same thing. How was he to know it would be read as uncircumcision by the circumcision and those called the uncircumcision?



John

We used to have a woman as art history teacher...
When we studied Renaissance (that is the period that is studied the most in Italian high schools) our teacher was witty during her explanation about the David, that was portrayed in a big picture in our art history book (I still have that book).
I can't recall the exact words...but she said something like "Please, guys take a magnifying glass and see the statue in detail, since it's all tiny".

We all were dead, laughing out loud...
We laughed for almost ten minutes or so. And she would giggle too...adding: his body reminds me of my ex bf...
LOL
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
. . . But it's unsettling that you were so fixated on it that you noticed a nuance that suggests of quasi-pornographic interest, focus, and examination. :cool:
Not at all. That is just noticing an inaccuracy. Like in those western movies where Indian, and not Indian girls are perfectly shaved under their armpits.

But I have to ask: Do you think that little children, to which circumcision is usually applied to, are pornographic subjects?

Btw, Moses had to be threatened before he was circumcised. And in some senses David is more Trumpian than Moses. I can imagine David keeping every little bit of an organ he never took for granted. Just ask Bathsheba. She would know.
You tell me. Personally, I think that correcting God's original design is sort of self defeating.

Ciao

- viole
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
. . . I think that correcting God's original design is sort of self defeating.

I couldn't agree more. And I think God always gets it right the first time. Which is why Genesis 2:21 stands out like a sore thumb; or I should say justifies a sore thumb-like organ. I suspect ritually removing an extra thumb (God never intended) is Abraham's way of telling us a secret about Genesis 2:21 that it seems only St. Paul read out of Abraham's memo.



John
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, they should only complain about cultural accuracy. It is indeed difficult to imagine a non-circumsided king of the Jews.

Ciao

- viole
Fun fact, circumcision the entire foreskin is a relatively recent awful practice. David would have been circumcised under the Hebrew 'brit milah' practice, which only removed a very small ring of tissue. A tip clip, if you will.

So the statue is historical!
 

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
Fun fact, circumcision the entire foreskin is a relatively recent awful practice. David would have been circumcised under the Hebrew 'brit milah' practice, which only removed a very small ring of tissue. A tip clip, if you will.

So the statue is historical!
Daaaaam!!!!!

dam
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
. . . But it's unsettling that you were so fixated on it that you noticed a nuance that suggests of quasi-pornographic interest, focus, and examination. :cool:
Uh, no, it means paying attention to detail. Art isn't something you just look at, but rather observe and take in.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Uh, no, it means paying attention to detail. Art isn't something you just look at, but rather observe and take in.

I took in and noticed ---observed that is --- that the artwork of the wolf on your avatar has a salacious overly satisfied smile on his face. I might report that to the PPA (Pornographic Protection Agency). If he had more than a smile, say a cigarette dangling from his lips, I'm sure they could make you remove the avatar from the purview of polite and puritanical viewership. We Puritans haven't disappeared. We just don't dress like we used to. I for instance wear a hot purple thong Speedo and a checkered sport jacket to camouflage my true pureness.


John
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I took in and noticed ---observed that is --- that the artwork of the wolf on your avatar has a salacious overly satisfied smile on his face. I might report that to the PPA (Pornographic Protection Agency). If he had more than a smile, say a cigarette dangling from his lips, I'm sure they could make you remove the avatar from the purview of polite and puritanical viewership. We Puritans haven't disappeared. We just don't dress like we used to. I for instance wear a hot purple thong Speedo and a checkered sport jacket to camouflage my true pureness.


John
If you see pornographic potential in my avatar maybe puritan views do nees to disappear as it has an unhealthy obsession with sex.
 
Top