Mmmm... Porn...

[SirBruce]

Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue'
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."

Bruce

[Strazos]

You know schild will just be itching to hit his "den" button when he sees the title and author of this, right?

[schild]

Already saw it. The title is stupid.

The article is minimally interesting. Sexual Taboos in the stone age? Please, these people were lucky to see their 20th birthday and not die during their first rainy season on Earth.

I wonder what their high school cliques were like.

[Strazos]

Same as they are now?

The lithe geeks huddled around eachother and hoped a big jock wouldn't slam their face into a hard surface while dragging their girlfriends around.

[Samwise]

I find it hilarious that this is such a revelation.  Do people really think that sex is a recent discovery?  If other animals are any indication, the first words that man ever uttered were probably "nice shoes, wanna fuck?" (which is what most bird calls and so forth roughly translate to).

Millenia from now, some archaeologist will find the Paris Hilton video and declare that it depicts a fertility goddess myth that was key to our primitive culture.

[Triforcer]

Archaeologist finds 'oldest porn statue'
 
Archaeologists have discovered what they believe to be the 7,200-year-old remnants of a man having intercourse with a woman.

How quaint.

[Strazos]

It's Germany....go figure.

[Samwise]

I know.  You wouldn't figure it to be something so... vanilla.

[SirBruce]

I tried to come up with a funnier titile... something like "I swear, I only learned sculpting for the articles!" or similar.  But I didn't think it really worked.

Bruce

[Abagadro]

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

[sinij]

  unearthed in Germany

Damn whacky germans.

[Der Helm]

Damn whacky germans.

What ?

[schild]

Damn whacky germans.

What ?

roflcopter.

[Sky]

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

Never forget we've all been educated stupid. Timecube may be a wackjob, but that's a damn fine quote, imo.

Not only do I find the idea of sex being taboo in ancient times just plain silly, I have a problem with everything being a friggin' religious artifact, too. Obviously there were a lot of religions going on and whatnot, but it seems to be a catch-all for the unexplained in ancient times. We're not sure what it is...probably a religious artifact.

[voodoolily]

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

[stray]

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

Pffft...Nonsense. Sex and fertility were the very first reasons that religion and concepts of God(s) were established.

[voodoolily]

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.

[stray]

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 own terms.

[voodoolily]

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.

Yeah, but what if those people in the statue weren't married? Or weren't married to each other?

Sex is only not taboo (a sin) under one condition: you're married to the person with whom you are having it, and that person is a member of the opposite sex. Am I misunderstanding that?

Edit: And don't Catholics even have a stipulation that sex is for the explicit purpose of procreation? I may be wrong on this minor detail, but it's really inconsequential.

[Samwise]

Like many religious tenets, "taboos" against extramarital sex arose from a very practical concern: for a society 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!

Catholicism does have some general notion that sex is for procreation, but not many Catholics take it very seriously, since taken to its logical conclusion it would mean that infertile couples couldn't have sex, and nobody wants to take it to that conclusion.  Modern Catholic arguments against premarital sex tend to focus on either practical aspects (unwanted pregnancy and/or STIs) or psychological aspects (having sex before you're emotionally ready can be psychologically scarring, sex is better when it's with someone you love, et cetera).

[MaceVanHoffen]

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

Very true.  You can read a lot of ancient writings by Christian authors that are quite ribald, and even disgusting by our modern, prudish sensibilities.  There are two main time periods that gave rise to what most people think of as the "religionist" view of sex in the West, both of which are relatively late in the overall timeline of Christianity:

(1) The Spanish Inquisition.  This was influential in many ways on our modern view of sex.  Particularly, our view that sex is dirty or that it is a private matter that should never be discussed with children.

(2) Victorian England.  So many taboos that we think of as backward actually stem from this wonderful little era in our history.  Even the notion of sexual disparity, that men are lusty and are permitted to freely enjoy sex while women are "pure" and cold and have sex only out of duty, comes largely from the Victorian equivalent of self-help gurus.

Really, American prudishness owes more to European culture than it does "Christian" religions.  It is hard to separate the culture from religion, I'll agree, but at a certain, recent point in history views on sex strayed very far from what had been considered normal.

I suspect that the history of Islam would bear out a similar fact.

[voodoolily]

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, and STDs didn't exist hadn't been known to afflict humans until the 1500s, I have a little skepticism about what you're saying, Samwise. The incest thing, yeah, of course. No flipper babies, please! I think you might be forgetting that humans existed for tens of thousands of years before we formed "societies" (although there were small clans).

Sociobiologically, humans who form a reproductive bond with a "life-partner" are at an advantage with respect to the provision of resources to the offspring. But unlike other mammals, humans have hidden ovulation, so a male never knows when a female is fertile; and like other mammals, never knows if an offspring is actually his. A female could be receiving resources from more than one male at any given time. Also, in all mammals, the capacity to carry a pregnancy to term, or to even conceive (e.g., her reproductive success), is a matter of the amount of body fat on the female, not how many or how few males with whom she copulates.

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.

Edit: I crossed out "unmarried" because if she's married, it's to someone else; if she's not, she's a whore.

[Samwise]

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

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.     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.

[Murgos]

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

Right, and thats why all those 2500 year old greek tragedies mention sex and then the resulting childbirth.

Sperm, individually, probably not.  Semen being the general cause of pregnancy certainly was known as far back as there is any record of any thing ever.

[MaceVanHoffen]

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.

I'm not defending the Christian view of sex, but you're focused on one taboo out of hundreds:  extramarital sex.  That isn't surprising, since extramarital sex is a hot button for most people in our society.  However, that is a very imcomplete picture.  The taboo on extramarital sex isn't anywhere near as damaging to society as, say, the taboo on discussing sexual matters with one's children.  Or thinking that any sex is dirty and its enjoyment or lack thereof can't even be discussed with one's spouse.  Or that the naked human form is so filthy that a sheet with a hole in it must be used during sex.  Or believing that sex is purely for procreation.  Or that a woman has no choice in her exercise of procreative ability.  Or ... well there are a lot of them.  People come up with stuff that's a lot worse than the no-sex-outside-of-marriage rule.

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.

[Triforcer]

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!

[MaceVanHoffen]

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

Me:  Pwned.  The Winner is you!

[SirBruce]

The worst thing Christianity did to sex was the "missionary position."  As the statues document, the natural and proper way to copulate is from behind.

Bruce

[TheWalrus]

But then you don't get to see her O face. ><

[Samwise]

Hello?  Mirror.

[Paelos]

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

[voodoolily]

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). I don't know when Islam came about. Was it before or after Christianity? Was it after the Greco-Roman Empire? Man, the Greco-Romans really had it dialed in, as far as pleasures of the flesh are concerned. Did you ever eat so much of something that was awesome that you actually contemplated sticking your finger down your throat so you could make room for more? Genius. (I'm TOTALLY kidding, guys. Don't freak out.)

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.

[stray]

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 offended. I just like to bring up these things because I feel so called "Christians" have fed the populace with misinformation. That in turn, makes the general populace criticize the religion for things it isn't even guilty of.

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.

[voodoolily]

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

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.     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.

Bukkake? Samwise, you dirty, dirty birdy.

The homunculous was an invention by Aristotle, and perpetuated by early biological theorists. I did actually already know about this, and remembered it on my drive home yesterday. Again, those Greeks were wacky!

[Samwise]

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...