2

I don't know a lot of Roman history, but I noticed in some of their statues, naked people. Their sexual organs are shown and obivious to people. Here's a simple google search.

Was it normal back then for citizens to show their sexual organs? Was it a symbol of strength? Could someone walk naked in the summer?

4
  • 1
    Here's a good place to start. Aug 26 '13 at 16:06
  • 1
    they simply weren't the hypocritical prudes that we are and showed the body like it really is rather than a version with the bits some zealots get excited about cut off to "protect vulnerable souls from temptation".
    – jwenting
    Aug 26 '13 at 16:23
  • Possible duplicate
    – MCW
    Aug 26 '13 at 16:33
  • @MarkC.Wallace That is a good point, for this question to be worthwhile (rather than being flagged as a duplicate) it will need to address significantly different reasons for non-male nudity or address reasons for nudity in general (equally applicable in male and non-male instances). Aug 26 '13 at 16:39
-1

No, they did not walk naked, they just created these statues.

The Roman statues follow the tradition of the Greeks.

1
  • I have to downvote this: No substantiation whatsoever - not even a wiki! This kind of thing might be appropriate for a comment - a hunch you have without evidence - sometimes we see that. But this by no means qualifies as an answer.
    – user2590
    Aug 27 '13 at 2:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.