, ,

Macrophilia artist He Thong has published a series portraying the biblical giant Goliath in various erotic poses. The series appears on He Thong’s blog, He Thong’s Giant Studies: Historically and Scientifically Sound Macrophilia. Remnant of Giants considers that this fascinating graphic artist deserves some larger exposure.

Remnant of Giants has previously compared the height of Goliath to that of an average Philistine. But He Thong makes the comparison from a different angle: “A well-built Goliath would have weighted [sic] the same as about five normal men.” While He Thong does not provide details of how he calculated this comparison, he does disclose that he bases Goliath’s size on the larger 6-and-a-half-cubit measure (given by the Masoretic Text, the Vulgate, and Symmachus).

The first of He Thong’s depictions of Goliath portrays the Philistine warrior among five average-sized Philistine soldiers, whose combined weight would have equalled Goliath’s own massive size. Goliath and the other five Philistines are depicted wearing thongs:

Goliath: weighs the same as five Philistine men

As demonstrated earlier by Remnant of Giants, Goliath’s fellow Philistines would have been little more than half the height of a 6-and-a-half-cubit Goliath. He Thong brings this size differential home by portraying the face of an average Philistine soldier in line with Goliath’s groin:

Goliath versus ordinary Philistine man (by He Thong)

Or from the reverse angle:
Goliath versus ordinary Philistine man: rear view (by He Thong)
The phenomenon of macrophilia certainly demonstrates how wrong Edmund Burke was, in Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful (pp. 157-58), when he opined, “It is impossible to suppose a giant the object of love. When we let our imaginations loose in romance, the ideas we naturally annex to that size are those of tyranny, cruelty, injustice, and every thing horrid and abominable.” Burke’s conception of love was just a little narrow-minded, and Annie Lennox was later to offer a more sober corrective (“Some of them want to use you; some of them want to get used by you”). He Thong’s macrophiliac art is combined with depictions of Goliath gathering slaves from his enemies, slave submission, and bondage – a common related paraphilia among a significant sector of macrophiles.

Jeffrey Cohen, in his helpful book On Giants, comments on the way giants are always too big for any frame of reference, so that giants are paradoxically both humanity-writ-large and inhuman – viewable only in pieces, especially by concentrating, fetish-like, on certain body parts. The giant also confuses the subjecthood of the human viewer: by contrast with the giant’s great size, the giant miniaturises the human viewer; by association with the giant as super-human, the giant empowers and giganticizes the human viewer. This is seen in the fact that the giants of legend can be depicted both as foundational heroes or city-founders and also as a threat of chaos from the outside of civilisation. While some macrophiles identify only with the giant (the ‘macro’) or the tiny (the ‘micro’), others are content to swing between the two. Yet even among those who identify solely with one or the other, by transference the dominated will usually identify with the power of the dominator.

Thus, macrophilia offers an interesting insight into the dynamics of the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. There is an undeclared oscillating relationship between David and Goliath in the narrative: for in opposing the brazen, loud-mouthed, blasphemous Goliath, and posing as a humble servant of the Israelite god, David associates himself with an even bigger figure (Yahweh, the Israelite god) – and so with/as the greatest gibbor of all (cf. Deut. 9.1-3; 10.17).