I had the idea of creating a comic series with the conversations here and the members depicted in an equally ridiculous manner. Anyway, the only one who had a point was Al Swearengen, I think. He is just not expressing it well enough for me to understand.
Yet are these men role models of males in society?
Yes. Virtually all men watch porn daily. Of course porn is 'just porn' but Indiana Jones is 'just an action movie' in an almost equivalent sense. The only notable difference is that the latter is a fantasy story and the sex in the porn as well as the big asses, tits and long penises are not, it is all real (despite some poor scripting maybe). So maybe it is reasonable to ask the question if people will rather take the fictitious seriously or the factual? Is a role model of a treasure hunting archeologist who fights Nazis with his whip and magical items more adaptable for people than a guy with a huge penis pounding the shit out of a woman? Of course this is all bullshit in my eyes, because I don't believe in role models in the first place. But it is your argument, so what...
A role model in my eyes may be someone who shows personal possibilities, like Einstein or Tesla (who was a nutjob but did great work nonetheless). But that doesn't really change my behavior, only how I loosely predict my future.
If perhaps this was allowable by society and not so heavily censured, would our heroes find good cause in the middle of a scene to measure up against friend or foe. In doing so, would that make them admirable and more worthy to the viewer?
Would this activity replace or bolster the qualities that viewer come to appreciate?
Possibly. It depends on the current social norms though. I imagine that two men about to fight and hurt each other would be, with nowadays anti-violence policy, appreciated to settle the issue with a penis length comparison instead. Because it shows courage to overcome emotional inhibitions for the greater good (which is not hurting people, which I don't agree with). Also this could be the case if two men had a long-lasting quarrel. But I guess as long as two men can physically fight against each other, penis comparisons are pretty superfluous.
I understand too that stating the modern media and censorship were responsible for the fact that the heroes were not portrayed in was that were consistent to your idea the "aspect of masculinity" of the penis measure up
It is strange that any representation of truly masculine men as role models or heroes seem to miss this aspect of masculinity in any representation of them.
So let's go back a little. Heracles? Achilles? Odyseuss?
C'mon Heracles and Achilles had gay lovers and there was no recorded dick measure ups recorded.
How important is this seemingly important aspect of masculinity missed here too? Blame the porn Bukkane?
You are on a loss maker here.
And the question was not: "Why is the penis of naked men visible? Because they are naked, trollolol.", that is a bullshit question you made up to discredit the issue
That was the question? And I made it up?
"Gee, why are all the men naked and showing off their dicks? They myst be gay or something ..."
I thought this was the question and YOU just made up the above question to replace the one that was giggle-worthy stupid 
It was a mock-quote to show you how ridiculous your response was, because you acted on that logic and other people generally do to. They see the naked muscular men depicted in Greek or Roman history and their conclusion is that they were all gay. Up until today it is rumored that the Greeks are gay. "Greek sex" is a term used for anal sex, etc. What was actually the case was of course that homosexuality just wasn't as frowned upon as it is today back then. But to most people, that makes the whole society gay, or something like that. I did not act on the logic of the quote. Reminder:
"Why do naked men show their dicks?" Look at that sentence again. See what is wrong with it? Think in terms of "Naked" and "showing their dick" because of such nakedness and then ask yourself why they were. The answer should spring to your mind.
Being masculine is socially somewhat difficult in society, and it is only getting more complicated. Other men will envy you for huge muscles and if you are too aggressive, confronting or violent that is obviously not well accepted too. Much of it just has to remain tamed and hidden, otherwise you will be antagonized too much socially. Being indirect, false and manipulative has become the new accepted method of aggression. Men used to punch each other in the face to settle an issue, now they fight from their desk with economic power, i.e. lawyers and lawsuits and likely do more and more complicated harm over longer periods of time in the process. I think that is a pretty distorted way of dealing with things.
Where will it all go, if men with tiny penises can just dominate and attack other men by being superior in social skills and on no other basis? Maybe they will present themselves even such that they are praised for it? Did the normative equivalence of men and women and related changes to social imperatives entirely ignore that men are a lot more aggressive, competitive, violent and criminal by nature? Maybe even more so, if they are physically weak and have a small penis. If you are born physically strong, and with a manly character, you learn early and very simply and quickly in life that it is not right to beat others up and harm them in order to confirm your own strength, for the sake of self assurance or to compete and dominate. On a very solid and elementary level, you learn that power comes with responsibility. As if it was designed that way by nature. Those emotional experiences stick forever. But what about the men who always felt naturally inferior, always had the unrequited need to confirm themselves, be better than the others but could never keep up in even the simplest aspects? And then they even had to realize that they had on top of all a very small penis. What will that do to them, later in life? What will it do to others, if social norms are such that those men effectively have more power and can be more dominating?
We all may believe at times that we are superior over our instincts and emotions by using our intellect. But the truth is that the intellect is only an augmentation. The true motor of being human is the emotional, the primal and the primitive. People who are devoid of that realization are extremely misguided and potentially dangerous in my eyes.
