Explanation: The Romans held a number of stereotypes regarding physical features, just as we do in the modern day. However, they were often linked to the core Roman ideal of moderation - the ‘average’ feature was the most desirable, with others being in some way deficient.

In the case of penis size, large penises were considered sexually attractive, but also suggestive of unrestrained (and thus immoderate and BARBARIC) appetites - the Roman Emperor Vespasian, for example, once made a joke making fun of an acquaintance who had a large penis. Barbarians, likewise, are often portrayed with humorously large penises, as well as primal gods, and gladiators and other members of society who were seen as somewhat brutish.

Small penises, on the other hand, suggested the opposite - a deficiency of ‘animal’ instinct and hungers, the mark of a weedy intellectual DWEEB. Still, that’s better than having no positive qualities associated with having a small penis, one supposes. Small penises were considered sexually attractive in Greek culture (and had the same intellectual implications), but not Roman culture, which was always a bit suspicious of those over-thinky types.

Obviously the ideal Roman is PERFECTLY AVERAGE in EVERY WAY

Me, a temporal gastronaut in DCCXXVII a.U.c., like “where garum?”

Most of history be like:

“Wow, you’re fat with a small penis! You must be quite rich and super smart!”

don’t you hate it when Emperors have a podcast instead of therapy?