In the above painting by Luca Ferrari [1605-1654], Roman Emperor Nero is standing with his arms outstretched over his dying mother, Agrippina the Younger.

Nero is like, “What the fuck happened here, I say? I was gone only a minute, for fuck’s sakes!” And then, knowing Nero’s proclivities….”Wow, get a load of mom’s jugs, will ya!”

It is more likely that the painter intended to show Nero appear grief-stricken, even though 1st century AD Roman grapevine suggested he actually had had her assassinated by a hired Libyan assassin, because she was on a power-behind-the-throne trip and had gone a bit too far undermining him.

Plutarch told me all this.

————————————

Let’s look at Agrippina’s two jigglipoos with a critical eye – no sag, no overt heaviness, no hand grenade-sized nipples, non-existent aureoles. Pure and virtuous, not naughty and seductive. They’re just not enough of a palmful……

That painting is a disgrace.

——————————

A 19th Century oil, ‘Liberty Leading the People’, (Delacroix 1830), depicting liberty in the form of a bare breasted woman leading the charge against the French King Charles X’s forces.

Certainly not the recommended outfit for hand to hand combat. But she won. The French monarch abdicated.

No wonder King Chuck lost. If I were there, facing off with this woman, would I give a fuck about fighting? Look at those boobies. Musta spilled out when a bayonet accidentally snipped a strap. Again, no sag, no obscene bulge, no plum nipples, armpits shaved, just runa-the-mill plain and guileless, not saucy.

They are the “Oops, sorry they just fell out” kind, not the “Come and get it, Tiger” kind. The men around her don’t seem aroused at all. They appear to be saying matter-of-factly,” Cover yoreself, Libby honey and let’s go kick some butt”.

———————————

Faust, lying spent after a night of pleasure with multiple nymphs, with the Satan standing over him (Falero 1880).

No, Satan isn’t saying, “Now, Fausti-boy, remember the deal”. The Satan is actually apologetic, his head bowed in shame as Faust falls asleep in sheer boredom. And Satan is saying, “Sorry bud, they’re all I had. If you wanted real tits, didn’t you know all broads with big tits go ta heaven?”

Again, the breasts Falero has painted are helter skelter, disorganized and plain. Rogers and Hammerstein would have observed, “They are flibbertigibits, they are willow-the-wisps, they are lambs.”

Yawwwn. I’ve never been so bored writing a post. Tennis anyone?

————————————– 

And don’t even get me started on paintings of Aphrodite, or Penthesilia, the queen of the Amazons or Venus or Helen of Troy. Tits, tits and more tits. All less than ordinary. Personally I like tits so large that they give me a crick in my jaws when I try to orally stimulate ’em.

Then there’s the male nudity thing in art, where the obsession is with penises……. shamefully little peanut richards. Muscular men with tiny dickies.

Michelangelo’s “David”. Just take a look at his tiddlytoo. So tiny. If you held up your pinkie in front of it, you’d block the view totally. Of course, it can be inspiring to a certain demographic – men who have tiny penises. Like “look, you can have wee little richards and still be able ta slay Goliaths.

Michelangelo’s famous fresco “The Creation of Adam”. If I had had a richard like Adam’s, I would be bullied outa boarding school.

——————————-

Classical painters insisted on painting tiny richards. Maybe they didn’t want dick-envy so they painted richards that were smaller than theirs’. I am willing to bet you never saw a renaissance painting that had a hunk with a 12-inch boner.

I recently visited the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts and I really think they should name the joint “Montreal Museum of unimpressive tit and dick pics”.

—————————-

But honestly, what’s with all this nudity thing that early impressionists were so obsessed with? Please, I know all that crap about symbolism, aesthetics and the ethereal beauty of the human body. I get that their focus was not on eroticism but on natural beauty. The impressionists did not count on teenaged boys in the shower three centuries later, trying to make something more outa their paintings. I was one of them.

All I want to know is how a guy like Rembrandt could sit through all those sessions with those gorgeous nudes and not end up with an erection? I guess he just strapped his boner to his inner thigh and kept repeating,”aesthetics first…aesthetics first…aesthetics first…aesthetics first…aesthetics first…”

But why the mundane tits and tiny dicks?

If I had been a Duke in 17th Century Italy awarding an impressionist a commission, I would tell him, “So go ahead and paint tits and dicks all you like – even in unusual settings like the battlefield or the farmer’s market, I don’t care. But please paint ’em big is all I ask, with richards that can knock on a castle door and nipples that can crack your skull if you bump into them.”

I reached for AI. DeepSeek says it all started with the ancient Greeks. The raunchy Greek vase painter, Aristophanes, thought that the ideal male should have a little ‘psolí’. The Greeks equated small richards to rationality and control and large cocks to idiocy and impetuousness.

I don’t give a flying fuck about rationality and control. I wanted so much to be an impetuous idiot. Sigh….look what I got.