This comment has illustrated the honest confusion and double-taking the topic of sexuality brings up.<p>The comment turned out to be a false supposition, and both the commenter and the OP were (not unreasonably!) conjuring a HN or American-sensibility censor to explain things they noticed.  The censor did not exist.<p>But it&#x27;s funny, a large part of the OP is about the dichotomy between the Flesh and the Intellect, a boundary which some Greeks wanted to highlight symbolically and visually.<p>They had their virility symbols (like Priapus and Dionysius), which were separated from other characters with smaller members but more lofty concerns.  (E.g., from the OP:  &quot;large penises were associated with very specific characteristics: foolishness, lust and ugliness...&quot;).<p>My point is that it&#x27;s not reasonable to foist off this drive to separate the Flesh from the Intellect as being an American-specific peculiarity.  Clearly the Greeks viewed this distinction as sometimes worth highlighting.