Introduction: Phallocentric thought has its roots in ancient times. In these civilizations, a large penis was the source of satisfaction and pride, whereas a small or short penis represented inferiority. Thus, the penis has come to symbolize many characteristics, such as fertility, virility, stamina, strength, authority, social power, and mental power in cultures throughout the ages. It seems logical that the alterations in the perception of ideal penis size would be reflected in paintings in which the penis is depicted. In this study, we aimed to investigate alterations in depicted penis size by evaluating nude male paintings from the 15th to 21st centuries. Methods: Nude-male paintings were identified from various art-history websites and analyzed to determine changes in penis size over time. Two observers organized the paintings according to the century in which they were created and made the calculations. Penile length to ear length (PtEL) or penile length to nose length (PtNL) were calculated to standardize the measurements using a professional image analysis software . PtEL was first attempted for all paintings; if PtEL could not be ascertained, then nose length was used instead of ear, as the nose length is defined as equal to ear length according to the Golden Ratio. Thus, PtNL was ensured and both ratios were then referred to using a common term: penis depiction ratio (PDR). Further analysis was performed by dividing the paintings into three groups according to the historical development of art: Renaissance Period (1400–1599; 15th–16th centuries), Baroque–Rococo and Impressionism Period (1600–1899; 17th–19th centuries) and Contemporary Art Period (1900–2020; 20th and 21st centuries). Results: Of 232 identified paintings, 72 (31.1%) were excluded because they depicted images of adolescents or an erect penis. PDR was found to differ significantly between paintings created in different centuries (ANOVA; p<0.001) (Table 1). Subgroup analysis revealed that paintings from the 21st century demonstrated significantly higher PDR than paintings from previous centuries (P = 0.001) (table 2). Table 1: Mean PDR ratios from painting according to the century they were painted Date n Mean PDR p value 1400-1499 10 1.0585 1500-1599 43 0.9545 1600-1699 11 0.9623 1700-1799 19 1.0024 *p < 0.001 1800-1899 38 0.9409 1900-1999 25 1.2074 2000- 14 1.5761 ANOVA, * P< 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Table 2: Subgroup analysis of mean PDR by century Base groups (year) Comparison groups (year) P value 1900-1999 1400-1499 p=0.354 1500-1599 *p < 0.001 1600-1699 p=0.103 1700-1799 p=0.108 1800-1899 *p < 0.001 2000-2020 *p < 0.001 2000-2020 1400-1499 *p < 0.001 1500-1599 1600-1699 1700-1799 1800-1899 1900-1999 Post Hoc Test (Gabriel) * The mean difference is significiant at the 0.05 level. Conclusions: In paintings depicting nude males, the size of the penis has gradually increased throughout the past 6 centuries, and especially after the 20th century. This observation illustrates the changing sociocultural inputs into male body image and emphasizes the need for improved understanding of the socio-cultural factors associated with the perception of penis size in men. SOURCE OF Funding: None
