Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun

[Primus Pilus]

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

[Primus Pilus]

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).

[Nephele]

I believe prehistoric man called it "zug-zug". I saw it in a movie.

 

-- Nephele

[Julius Ratus]

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.

[The Augusta]

Deary me! They'll be funding research into ancient nose-picking next, I shouldn't wonder.

[Drusus Nero]

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 .

[Horatius]

Who would have thunk it ! http://www.conelrad.com/conelrad100/images...nagecaveman.jpg

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I take my hat off to the guy's of yester year... Once a man always a man .........Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

[docoflove1974]

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!

[Northern Neil]

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!

[caldrail]

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.

[The Augusta]

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?

[Nephele]

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

[caldrail]

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!

[Andrew Dalby]

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