Winslow, 1

When it comes to the existence of objects that have morphed and changed, in part

due to their perception throughout the course of history, it does not take long before one

begins to consider objects of exceedingly long, cylindrical, and rounded nature. The reader

has but to consider the iconically Ionic columns of the Parthenon, the obelisks of ancient

Egypt, or the steles of Persia before realizing the true extent to which such objects have been

the focus of ancient, and present, attention.

However, before delving further into the content of this essay, it is necessary to

consider the historical context. What is the importance of these cylindrical forms? What is

their significance? How great is their prevalence? It is possible to argue, simply, that they are

convenient structural forms which provide sufficient support to architectural constructs such

as temples? Returning closer to reality, it must be necessary to also answer the question of

present attention that must be paid to such objects, living or inhuman in nature. Just because

ancient anthropological study suggests that, for centuries of time before, these shapes

(hereafter referred to as “Phallic forms” due to their striking resemblance to the male member)

and their representative bodily shape (the aforementioned male form) have been readily

worshipped, utilized, and indeed used to represent power and the secular sacred, does not

necessarily suggest that they ought to continue to be thusly treated.

To begin, let us consider the prevalence of such phallic forms in the true reality of

history, and then consider the philosophical implications of this prevalence in the context of

Plato’s forms. It does not take a highly educated person to realize the historical extent of

these Phallic forms. Let us begin first of all in Ancient Egypt with the Obelisks. These

monumental shapes were tall, four­sided towers that rose and culminated in a pyramid.

Obelisks were placed out in front of places of great ritual, such as temples or places of

worship, be it of the Egyptian Gods or of the Pharaoh himself. Obelisks, therefore,

Winslow, 2

represented the interconnection of the divine form with the human form. To visit a place

wherein a obelisk stood was to visit the place of God on earth. Such a powerful association

foreshadows the great importance of the Phallic form throughout history.

However, when considering the Obelisk, it is possible to note that whereas the true

Phallic Form is curvaceous and rounded, the Egyptian obelisk is sharp and pointed, less

indicative of the Phallus as it is a mere act of defiance to the skies. Herein, then, lies the true

point of interest. Did the Egyptians consider the Obelisk a phallus, or merely a directional

pointer, indicating, as it were, the source of it’s power via a bold gesture towards the

heavens? Regardless of the answer to this question, it cannot be denied that, like the phallic

form, the Obelisk is long, hard (as they were atypically created with substances other than

granite or sandstone), and at least reminiscent of Phalli. Interestingly enough, the Romans fell

remarkably in love with the Obelisk, resulting in the creation of at least 400 more Obelisks in

Rome itself than in the entirety of Egypt. This is quite relevant considering the historical

obsession the ancient Roman Empire had with the literal phallus. One has but to visit the

ruins of Pompeii to see that the Romans were no novice to the usage of the phallus as a

vehicle for pleasure and escape from the day to day drudgeries. Indeed, perhaps this is what

they considered it to be: a path from the restraints of the earth, such as pain, stress, and the

occasional qualms of age. This suggestion is further supported by the realization that the

Ancient Egyptians considered the Obelisk to be the home and representation of Ra, the

overarching ‘king’ of the Gods; the Obelisks were to represent the rays of Ra, the source of

his power and his lust. The Romans, as they were wanton to, recognized this, and through

their process of amalgamation of Egyptian religion, took the Obelisk and erected (no pun

intended) thousands throughout the city of Rome.

Winslow, 3

Unfortunately, with the fall of the Roman Empire (and the deflation of Roman

greatness) all but a few of these Obelisks were dismantled into parts and pieces. However, a

few still stand, most notably the 25­meter tall one that resides within Saint Peter’s square in

Rome. An interesting note to consider is the further spread of the Obelisk throughout the

world in the subsequent years. Various popes erected these monuments in the Vatican, but

otherwise history is somewhat quiet on the silent spread of this particular phallic form, but one

has only to visit Washington DC, Paris, or Istanbul to see great masterful pointed shapes

raised skyward in defiance of the gods, begging for someone to come down and rub them out

as the stiff representations of man’s power that they are.

Thusly, while the Obelisk is but a single example of the Phallic Form in history, it’s

world­wide acceptance indicates, perhaps, a pursuit of something far greater than just the

memorialization of mankind’s power. To answer the deeper question of what this deeper

meaning truly is, we must consider the philosophy of Plato’s Forms, which thus far have but

been alluded to, not officially drawn out here.

To begin with, let us consider the question originally asked by Plato: what gives an

object its identity? That is, what makes a chair, a chair, or a horse, a horse? Is it some list of

traits that the object can be compared to, and then via this comparison, a conclusion be

made? Is it the object’s functionality? It’s visual representation? None of these three works

exactly well; none can account for the diversity that might exist within each object’s category.

To answer this question, Plato proposed the existence of what he called the Forms. These

were ethereal concepts, abstract representations of the ‘perfect’ object. That is to say, for the

concept of chair, there exists a form that perfectly represents the most chair­like chair to ever

be. Therefore, as we continue throughout life, when we come upon a new object, we

immediately, through some unknown process, access the realm of these forms, and

Winslow, 4

immediately are able to see which Form best matches the object before us, and draw some

conclusion about this new and novel object that we have not yet otherwise categorized.

One aspect about Plato’s Forms was the pursuit of the Ideal Form for each object.

Plato considered that one of the most important aspects of the intellectual and philosophical

pursuits of mankind was to continually be seeking after the closest real

anthropomorphological personification of each abstract, ethereal Form. This is to say that as

each and every one of us lives life, we ought to try and experience as many different aspects

of an object until we have felt that we have since accomplished the experience, through

averaging all these experiences, the Perfect Form. This pursuit seems to be well­reflected in

the variety of the Phallic Form in art, architecture, and often in weaponry.

Whilst this dalliance into the consideration of Plato’s forms and the pursuit of the

perfect phallus is indeed worthwhile, and to point addresses the question of whether or not to

continue considering the penis as a worthwhile pursuit, the writer at this point feels it is

necessary to point out the continued historical degree of prevalence of the phallus in other

forms aforementioned. A simple perusal of sculpture throughout history presents a quite valid

argument from authority wherein ancient artists considered that the penis should be worthy of

artistic representation. Consider, for a moment, Michelangelo's David. Vasari, our most

interesting and reliable historian of the Renaissance artists, considered Michelangelo to be

the pinnacle of artistic form, with every touch of his brush a stroke of genius, every marble

chip removed by his chisel a masterpiece. If we consider Vasari’s opinion to be valid, then we

must also conclude that Vasari held the penis of Michelangelo’s David to be similarly

masterful in its form. And indeed, as we see it, while it might be the most monstrous of phalli,

it is subtle and shapely, and is somehow the complementary center of the sculpture. One can

Winslow, 5

but wonder of Michelangelo considered David to be a grower rather than a shower, and

considered this expression of virility to be the most worthwhile.

While this momentary exclusion into the arts proves itself a valid representation of the

exaltation of the phallic form to that of artistic purity, it does not necessarily suggest the

universality of the desire for such forms in the minds of your everyday human. To consider

and understand this, we must turn to the forefathers of psychology, namely Freud and Jung.

Freud is well­known as being obsessed with sex as a whole, blaming anything from anxiety to

depression on repressed sexual urges, often, in his mind, directed towards our mothers,

fathers, or authority figures. However, his suggestion that sex is a universal drive does

manage to mesh quite well with Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious. To Jung, it

seemed strange that throughout the world a wide variety of ideas occurred simultaneously.

Strange coincidences such as these, argued Jung, were indicative of the existence of a

‘collective’ unconscious; a separate hive­mind that we all are able as human beings to access

beyond our awareness. Jung also noted that, expressions of ‘maleness’ existed across

cultures, almost universally expressed as phallic forms of various sizes. This concept

suggests that, somewhere deep in our minds, exists the desire to pursue Plato’s perfect

Phallic form through a vicarious experience of as many of these forms, living or inanimate, as

we can in order to satisfy a freudian primal need.

It must be noted that, when seeking after an object, one must consider the size of the

object that is being pursued. However, contrary to modern expectation, throughout history, the

most common understanding of the phallic form was not that sized mattered, but rather what

that size represented. In ancient Rome, having an abnormally engorged member was

considered barbaric and violent; the act of sex with such an object would have appalled even

the most loose of herculean harlots. Part of this comes from the original roots of the, shall we

Winslow, 6

say, ‘well­endowed’ African peoples. These peoples, when encountered by the Romans were

considered less than worthy of attention, made only for slavery. Thus, any association with

their physical attributes, as in the extended jawlines of Germanic folk, hinted at unrefined

barbarism. The ancient Greeks also seem to have agreed with this suggestion, with many

ancient vases that portray the original Olympics in their virile nudity portraying almost

miniscule packages of men’s penises wrapped up with a little bow. Thus, while in recent years

the prevalence of pornographic material has falsely propagated the myth that the male

member must be massive, history is indeed against this: smaller might indeed just be better.

Thus, as the phallic form is indeed worthy as a whole of consideration, one ought not to so

readily dismiss those that are of more diminutive size; indeed, a woman’s most sensitive

vaginal areas exist in the first two to three inches of her entry, well within the reaches of even

the most unfortunate of men.

All of this historical flim­flam does only one thing for me, personally, however. It may

perhaps only give you good thoughts when considering how much the ancients and some of

the presents considered the very idea of the phallic form worth their time. Who are we to

disagree with an empire that lasted longer than any other, whose ideas lasted far beyond the

end of their empire? Or indeed, who am I to argue with Michelangelo with regard to what sort

of penis is truly worth spending hours of soft touch upon? I am but a man, and what more can

I say than to suggest that, as a part of your continued pursuit of the perfect form, you consider

myself to be but a humble step towards the experience of all that the Egyptians and Romans

considered to be the pathway to heaven? What more can I ask than for you to experience my

representation of defiance to the Gods, my ray of sunshine that I revere as a gift from the

daily drudgery, the drive of instinct, the push and pull of the rat race. I bow before you

Winslow, 7

requesting that you do, indeed, as millions of earth’s inhabitants before you, consider my

penis worth your while.

Oh, and I did indeed notice that this is only six pages. It’s a bit short. Like my penis.

Sorry about that.