Primus Pilus Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 He may have come down from the trees, but prehistoric man did not stop swinging. New research into Stone Age humans has argued that, far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun. Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties. According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- the Venus of Willendorf -- and an equally ancient stone phallus found in a German cave, provide the earliest direct evidence that sex was about far more than babies... Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted May 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Here's hoping that a small fortune in my tax dollars weren't spent on this absurd research that could've been easily answered by simply asking any man (except apparently Timothy Taylor at Bradford University). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 I believe prehistoric man called it "zug-zug". I saw it in a movie. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Sounds like the author was pulling his info out of his hat. He offered no proof other than his own horny speculation. That said, I do not disbelieve his premise, it is logical, but I think that a lot of money has been wasted on his research. Besides, he mentions bondage and such. It's not called bondage, Dr. Tim, it's called rape. Bondage is how Sadists get their jollies in these more civilized times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Deary me! They'll be funding research into ancient nose-picking next, I shouldn't wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Nero Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Oh my, * mops fevered brow* I never thought of our distant ancesters doing "the wild thing" before . I might have to go and lay down in a darkened room . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatius Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Who would have thunk it ! http://www.conelrad.com/conelrad100/images...nagecaveman.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I take my hat off to the guy's of yester year... Once a man always a man .........Grrrrrrrrrrrrr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docoflove1974 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 If anyone needs further proof that too much research leads to way too active an imagination...key-rist, talk about giving academics a bad name! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 I wouldn't have thought that any research would have been needed for this. Given that people like us have been around for at least 150'000 years, I would have thought you could infer that recreational sex was happening at least since then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 He may have come down from the trees, but prehistoric man did not stop swinging. New research into Stone Age humans has argued that, far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun. Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties. According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- the Venus of Willendorf -- and an equally ancient stone phallus found in a German cave, provide the earliest direct evidence that sex was about far more than babies... Fox Possibly, but primitive societies tend to be very strict on moral issues, and phalluses often mean something else than sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Possibly, but primitive societies tend to be very strict on moral issues, and phalluses often mean something else than sex. Interesting point. But when did 'morals', as we perceive them, kick in? Did these very primitive societies lay down rules for the protection of the family, say - and was that based on primeval notions of territory and such like? In societies before there was organised religion or philosophy, what form would these 'morals' take? I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this. As for the phalluses - didn't they always symbolise fertility? Or did they have other associations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Interesting point. But when did 'morals', as we perceive them, kick in? Did these very primitive societies lay down rules for the protection of the family, say - and was that based on primeval notions of territory and such like? In societies before there was organised religion or philosophy, what form would these 'morals' take? I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this. As for the phalluses - didn't they always symbolise fertility? Or did they have other associations? The phallus, in the form of an amuletic symbol in ancient Rome, was often used to bring good fortune to its wearer. As for what form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Possibly, but primitive societies tend to be very strict on moral issues, and phalluses often mean something else than sex. Interesting point. But when did 'morals', as we perceive them, kick in? Did these very primitive societies lay down rules for the protection of the family, say - and was that based on primeval notions of territory and such like? In societies before there was organised religion or philosophy, what form would these 'morals' take? I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this. As for the phalluses - didn't they always symbolise fertility? Or did they have other associations? As social animals we therefore have elements of 'pecking orders', 'mating rituals', 'feeding rights' etc. Morals are an extension of our social behaviour. Our intelligence and self-awareness has modified these behaviour patterns in accordance with the enviroment we live in. Primitive societies deal in survival and so their moral code is fairly simple. Modern western folk have much more freedom and free time with little worry of where to get food and water, thus their moral code tends to be more individualistic. Phalluses often symbolise fertility, but good luck charms or wards against evil are also common. There's one part of the world (I really cannot remember the area) where the locals paint phalluses on their walls for that very purpose today. It looks very odd to our eyes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 (edited) He may have come down from the trees, but prehistoric man did not stop swinging. New research into Stone Age humans has argued that, far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun. Practices ranging from bondage to group sex, transvestism and the use of sex toys were widespread in primitive societies as a way of building up cultural ties. According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman -- the Venus of Willendorf -- and an equally ancient stone phallus found in a German cave, provide the earliest direct evidence that sex was about far more than babies... The study may well be more challenging than the newspaper reports (it can be hard to get your research noticed!) but my comment would be that women and phalluses (which are necessarily attached to men, but the phallus is the only useful part) are essential to the production of babies. 30,000 years ago, people had already noticed this. So the two artworks don't prove that "sex was about far more than babies"; they could just as well prove that baby production was seen as necessary to the community. As for transvestism, I'm a bit sceptical. Has research shown that people wore clothes, and that they wore them when not out hunting, and that the two sexes wore them differently, 30,000 years ago? That would be needed first, I feel ... Edited May 4, 2007 by Andrew Dalby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.