f13.net

Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1451507,00.html)
Krysia Diver in Stuttgart
Monday April 4, 2005
The Guardian

Stone-age figurines depicting what could be the oldest pornographic scene in the world have been unearthed in Germany.
 
Archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be the 7,200-year-old remnants of a man having intercourse with a woman.

The extraordinary find, at an archaeological dig in Saxony, shatters the belief that sex was a taboo subject in that era.

Until now, the oldest representations of sexual scenes were frescos from about 2,000 years ago.

Harald Stäuble of the Archaeological Institute of Saxony, based in Dresden, discovered the 8cm lower half of a man, which has been named Adonis von Zschernitz.

"A unique find," reported Spiegel magazine. "This is the oldest male clay figurine ever discovered in the world."

But the most amazing find came at the dig in Leipzig one month later, when Dr Stäuble found what could be the matching female figurine.

Dr Stäuble, who is due to publish a paper on his findings this year, said: "After finding Adonis, we got the team to sieve every speck of soil for a whole month. We were well rewarded because we then found fragments of a female figurine of the same size."

He added: "Adonis is bent forward and the female figure is bent forward even more.

"There are two ways of looking at this. The first is that they were doing a ritual dance, but the other possibility is that the man and woman were copulating and that he was standing behind her. The copulation option is far more likely, and would make this the oldest representation ever of a pornographic scene."

Until now, there have been discoveries of clay models of women with large breasts and bottoms, which have always been interpreted as connected with fertility. But Adonis was the first figurine that clearly depicted male sexual organs.

"This is such an interesting discovery," said Dr Sträuble, "as these figurines are not stylistic, but realistic. They open up a gateway for historians and anthropologists to discuss whether sex really was a taboo subject in the stone age."

Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1451507,00.html)
 
Archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be the 7,200-year-old remnants of a man having intercourse with a woman.

  unearthed in Germany

Damn whacky germans.

What ?

This is obviously a fake as the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Before religion, sex wasn't a taboo subject. Now, of course it's dirty and wrong and WAY better.

Naysayer!

Before organized (e.g., Judeo-Christian and Middle-Eastern) religions, sex wasn't a taboo subject. Now it's dirty and wrong and WAY better.

There. Happy? Pagans and goddess-worshippers didn't invent deities so they could feel bad about themselves. BTW, I'm not interested in getting into it again with you and Paelos. I was just trying to be funny.

Edit: Why is everything that depicts sex porn, anyway? Is this a clear case of "you know it when you see it"? Must be hot.

I know you're just trying to be funny, but just hear me out: The reason why I chime in and comment on certain things like this is because you (and many others) are a victim of misunderstanding.

Sex was NEVER a taboo subject to "Judeo-Christian" traditions. It has nothing to do with "feeling bad about ourselves" either. Stop interpreting it in the light of what some screwball said to you and deal with it on it's its own terms.

Sex was NEVER a taboo subject to "Judeo-Christian" traditions. It has nothing to do with "feeling bad about ourselves" either.

Like many religious tenets, "taboos" against extramarital sex arose from a very practical concern: forsociety to survive, kids need to be raised as productive members of that society.  Unwed mothers simply weren't good for the long-term health of ancient societies.  Neither are VD epidemics or incest.  Neither is Ug beating his neighbor Og's head in because Og slept with Ug's favorite girl.  Neither are deadbeat dads.  If your culture discourages extramarital sex, it encourages the creation of stable family units that will strengthen the society, and your culture will thrive while other cultures are dying of gonorrhea.

Of course, a lot of other stuff ends up coming along for the ride, some of which was based on incomplete knowledge of human reproduction and biology.  For example, taboos against masturbation and sodomy came in part from the belief that "wasting sperm" would significantly lower chances of reproduction - early societies needed every baby they could get!

Well, considering that sperm hadn't been discovered until von Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in the 1600s

Well, considering that sperm hadn't been discovered until von Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in the 1600s.

I wasn't questioning the origin of sexual taboos, I was simply stating that they existed. I implore the Christians to cite a verse in the Bible that says it's okay to have premarital sex that isn't sinful. I would love the ammo for my father. I did, however, find a verse that says if a man has sex with a virgin who isn't engaged to someone else, he has to marry her and pay her father 50 silver shekels (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). All other mentions of sex with unmarried women who aren't virgins (that I could find) said that the man and woman should both be killed.

Sexual taboos exist, yes.  Linking [most of] them to primitive Christianity is a specious argument and ignores the fact that this is a much larger problem than the morality of a single religion.

But not making the argument would break our taboo of not spraying manseed all over organized religion at every opportunity!

This thread should be taboo. All the science talk is hot!

Amen, brother! Science is way hot.

For the record, I didn't initially link sex taboos with Chrisitianity. When a point I made was challenged by (read: offended) Stray, I elaborated by insinuating that the taboos came from organized religion (Judeo-Christianity and Islam).

Not sure about STIs (though that's my private theory about how God smote Sodom - "fire and brimstone" was a bad translation for "it burned when they peed").  I know for certain that you don't need a microscope to spot a man's "seed", as it's called in the Bible.   :wink:  Google "bukkake" if you don't believe me.  In fact, before the whole process was understood, people believed that the man's "seed" contained all of the important reproductive material (the seed contained a tiny fully-formed human called a "homonculous"), and that the woman was simply a vessel for the "seed" to grow in.

Back to science being kinky, the thing I find really interesting is that monogamy really has no biological basis. There are cultural advantages to it, but it's not really in our blood (being animals and all). In fact, there are many more biological advantages to polygyny and polygamy than to monogamy (e.g., a female can select several mates with desriable characteristics and have one man pay the bills while having a different baby daddy). I'm certainly not advocating adultery, because I'm loyal to a fucking fault and could never cheat. But it's interesting to me that humans, biologically, shouldn't be monogamous.

Interesting thing is that the only biological loser in the polygyny equation is the man who's paying the bills... and the man who's paying the bills is the one with the most power in his society, and therefore potentially the most influential when laws and codes of conduct are being established for that society (e.g. the one most able to bribe congressmen or the ancient equivalent thereof).  Hmm...

It's my mission in life (so to speak) to "try correcting" the mistakes perpetrated by the Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwells of the world. It has nothing to do with lashing out at you. You're comments are simply the result of their bullshit.

The only people I'm offended by in this matter are Christians.

Interesting thing is that the only biological loser in the polygyny equation is the man who's paying the bills... and the man who's paying the bills is the one with the most power in his society, and therefore potentially the most influential when laws and codes of conduct are being established for that society (e.g. the one most able to bribe congressmen or the ancient equivalent thereof).  Hmm...

Well, at least we see eye to eye on something.

Before organized (e.g., Judeo-Christian and Middle-Eastern) religions, sex wasn't a taboo subject. Now it's dirty and wrong and WAY better.

Yeah, Victorians really were about the dirtieist birds you can find, it's just that they covered it all up with lots of social bullshit. For good examples, watch Wilde (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120514/), about Oscar Wilde. Fantastic movie, especially if you are an Oscar Wilde fan.

I wasn't questioning the origin of sexual taboos, I was simply stating that they existed. I implore the Christians to cite a verse in the Bible that says it's okay to have premarital sex that isn't sinful.

So there you have it - the leading spiritual figure in the Western world really is a bastard and the First Christians had zero issue with it.  This offends a lot of people now, but it is complete nonsense that these old Jews were sexual prudes.  This was a pastoral culture.  Farmers and ranchers have no problem with the strange paradox that an eager young bride can do in six months what takes a cow nine months.

Yeah, Victorians really were about the dirtieist birds you can find, it's just that they covered it all up with lots of social bullshit. For good examples, watch Wilde (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120514/), about Oscar Wilde. Fantastic movie, especially if you are an Oscar Wilde fan.