| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2007 03:23:17 PM |
| Object: |
Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html
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 widespread lay belief that sex in the past was predominantly
heterosexual and reproductive can be challenged," said Taylor.
He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer
societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the
social roles of men and women to become more fixed.
Experts believe research such as Taylor's may help overturn false
assumptions that sex for the purposes of reproduction is the form
closest to nature.
.
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 06:32:18 PM |
|
|
<simple_language@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181852597.394232.35270@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
source:
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html
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.
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 09:35:26 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
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.
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have
found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know
dildos when I see them.
The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at
Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal
herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm.
guess why it has that name.
If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation,
why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello?
It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men
who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly
documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men
who made a potion from pregnant mare's ***** that had so much estrogen
in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits.
When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy,
you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure
resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in
the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from
1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of
all the Aryan languages to reconsctruct PIE. But by citing German,
Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit sources, they show how the Aryan clergy
were banned from the use of weapons. It didnt occur to them that this
was because the original clergy were all female, and they had other
weapons, like cunts, to control the behavior of men.
But one of the more obvious clues... is that the Pope still dresses in
drag. with lace. In a gown, without visible pants. with a hat that
would cover a beehive hairdo. And if you look at the figures of women
in postures of authority shown by Gimbutas, you see the hairdos. 7000
years ago.
Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of
scholarship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 09:38:21 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1181874926.706154.187070@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of
scholarship.
Translated: Your evidence is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of
scholarship and an appeal to authority.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Connie" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
16 Jun 2007 08:50:56 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:> > 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.
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have
found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know
dildos when I see them.
The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at
Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal
herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm.
guess why it has that name.
If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation,
why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello?
It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men
who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly
documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men
who made a potion from pregnant mare's ***** that had so much estrogen
in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits.
When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy,
you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure
resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in
the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from
1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of
What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did
you crib it from German sources of the 1930's?
all the Aryan languages to reconsctruct PIE. But by citing German,
Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit sources, they show how the Aryan clergy
were banned from the use of weapons. It didnt occur to them that this
was because the original clergy were all female, and they had other
weapons, like cunts, to control the behavior of men.
But one of the more obvious clues... is that the Pope still dresses in
drag. with lace. In a gown, without visible pants. with a hat that
would cover a beehive hairdo. And if you look at the figures of women
in postures of authority shown by Gimbutas, you see the hairdos. 7000
years ago.
Your dismissability is unwarranted, and evidence of a lack of
scholarship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
16 Jun 2007 02:39:10 PM |
|
|
On Jun 16, 8:50 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:> > 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.
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have
found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know
dildos when I see them.
The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at
Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal
herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm.
guess why it has that name.
If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation,
why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello?
It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men
who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly
documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men
who made a potion from pregnant mare's ***** that had so much estrogen
in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits.
When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy,
you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure
resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in
the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from
1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of
What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did
you crib it from German sources of the 1930's?
My reading of history goes back a good deal before the Nazis tried to
define "Aryan" to suit them. I am not the only one who is trying to
reclaim the word to what it meant in the 19th century when it was
realized that English, German, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and
(in the beginning of the 20th when they found) Tocharian, that all
these Aryan languages had a common root.
Go to Tehran, and ask, and they will clearly tell you that they are
descended from "the Aryans" and that this is why "Iran" has the name.
Are they wrong to use the term?
"Proto-Indo-European" is a cumbersome politically correct mouthful.
But if you, or anyone, can point out to me what the original Aryans
themselves called themselves, I'd seriously consider using that term.
We do it for other groups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
16 Jun 2007 08:09:04 PM |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1182022750.724247.175570@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 8:50 am, Connie <conrad.gel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 15, 10:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:> > 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.
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
I cant speak to what any given group did. But archaeologists have
found "phallic wands". But dude, I've seen porn flix, and I know
dildos when I see them.
The earliest evidence I know of is the 52,000 year old shaman grave at
Shanidar Iraq. The shamen was buried with several powerful medicinal
herbs, among which is Cyannus Centaurea, aka "bachelor button". hmm.
guess why it has that name.
If they were not having sex for recreation rather than procreation,
why bother with an emmenegogue? Hello?
It has also common knowledge in India of a class of transvestite men
who are priestess to Kali and midwives. It is less common, but clearly
documented that the Sythians millennia ago, had a similar class of men
who made a potion from pregnant mare's ***** that had so much estrogen
in it, it made their beards fall out and grow tits.
When you trace back the etymology of Aryan words related to clergy,
you find out that they are all femine forms. One of my more obscure
resources, "Did the Proto-Indo-European Priesthood Commit Treason in
the Period of PIE Unity?" is a masterful piece of scholarship from
1988, before computers were used to collate all the vocabularies of
What the heck are "Aryan languages"? Did you make this term up, or did
you crib it from German sources of the 1930's?
My reading of history goes back a good deal before the Nazis tried to
define "Aryan" to suit them. I am not the only one who is trying to
reclaim the word to what it meant in the 19th century when it was
realized that English, German, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Sogdian, and
(in the beginning of the 20th when they found) Tocharian, that all
these Aryan languages had a common root.
Go to Tehran, and ask, and they will clearly tell you that they are
descended from "the Aryans" and that this is why "Iran" has the name.
Are they wrong to use the term?
"Proto-Indo-European" is a cumbersome politically correct mouthful.
But if you, or anyone, can point out to me what the original Aryans
themselves called themselves, I'd seriously consider using that term.
We do it for other groups.
Uh huh...and piltdown man was a pigs tooth that you dummies concocted a
whole culture around.Such is evolutions weakness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Money |
17 Jun 2007 12:06:15 PM |
|
|
Whaddya think those beads were for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist are Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Money |
17 Jun 2007 09:31:44 PM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46756A07.48A36196@hotmMOVEail.com...
Whaddya think those beads were for?
Wearing?
Unless they belonged to your mother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
20 Jun 2007 05:33:29 AM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 3:35 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
<snip>
it made their beards fall out and grow tits.
Now I've heard of bearded tits, but never titted beards!
OK. I do know what you meant, but it was just too good to miss ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
15 Jun 2007 09:43:49 AM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 7:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
Unless you were sitting under Jesus' crucifix while his bony *****
became a mounted hill decoration, you look like a retard making a
comment like "were you there?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiktaalik" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
16 Jun 2007 03:55:07 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 3:43 pm, Sasha <KTBpy...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 7:32 pm, "Atheist are Stooges" <Atheist.Stoo...@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
Were you there?
If not I suggest you stop your fantasy.
Unless you were sitting under Jesus' crucifix while his bony *****
became a mounted hill decoration, you look like a retard making a
comment like "were you there?"
NEWSFLASH!!!! He IS a retard.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pete" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
23 Jun 2007 05:17:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Experts believe research such as Taylor's may help overturn false
assumptions that sex for the purposes of reproduction is the form
closest to nature.
Who thinks that?
Since when, has the satisfaction of primal urges
generally been considered to be a modern invention of humanity?
Hasn't anybody ever seen an animal in heat?
You can't possibly think that those animals
are making conscious decisions about future population densities.
--
pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
23 Jun 2007 10:20:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:17:57 GMT, pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> wrote:
simple_language@yahoo.com wrote:
Experts believe research such as Taylor's may help overturn false
assumptions that sex for the purposes of reproduction is the form
closest to nature.
Who thinks that?
Christian nuts.
Since when, has the satisfaction of primal urges
generally been considered to be a modern invention of humanity?
Since Christianity invented the concept.
Hasn't anybody ever seen an animal in heat?
They claim that we're not animals.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
17 Jun 2007 08:52:34 PM |
|
|
According to the study, a 30,000-year-old statue of a naked woman --
She wasn't naked. She was wearing a hat. A knitted hat. I am not
making this up.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 09:25:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:23:17 -0700, "simple_language@yahoo.com"
<simple_language@yahoo.com> wrote:
source: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html
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
The Willendorf Venus was a fertility goddess.
-- and an equally ancient stone phallus
You're equating that to a *****? You're a moron. No surprise, seeing
that you believe that Faux Noise doesn't make up its stories.
"He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer
societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the
social roles of men and women to become more fixed." It most likely
became fixed when it became a reproductive advantage to have one man
stay with a woman. Evolution isn't really that difficult to
understand - when something works it continues to be reproduced. If
monogamy produced more offspring, humans tended toward monogamy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred A Stover" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 11:11:18 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cdt3739rtg1fcn26nfov65e2af0keero19@4ax.com...
It's not likely, did you ever smell one of them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
15 Jun 2007 07:39:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:11:18 GMT, "Fred A Stover"
<fredstover@email.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cdt3739rtg1fcn26nfov65e2af0keero19@4ax.com...
It's not likely, did you ever smell one of them?
A little context would be nice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
14 Jun 2007 11:01:35 PM |
|
|
On Jun 14, 10:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:23:17 -0700, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com"
<simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
source:http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,269115,00.html
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
The Willendorf Venus was a fertility goddess.
Perhaps. I don't think we fully understand all there is to know
about the "Cult of the Venuses." These statuettes were found
throughout Europe and parts of Asia (from "France to Siberia") and
date to the period from 20 - 27 kya. So whatever was prompting the
artists to make the Venuses continued for about 7000 years.
One thing is becoming quite clear to me: The Venus of Willendorf
represents a FAT person and not necessarily a pregnant person. Jois
and I had this same discussion on sap many years ago.
The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in
similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate
the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously
connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we
engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our
development as a species.
regards,
charles
-- and an equally ancient stone phallus
You're equating that to a *****? You're a moron. No surprise, seeing
that you believe that Faux Noise doesn't make up its stories.
"He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer
societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the
social roles of men and women to become more fixed." It most likely
became fixed when it became a reproductive advantage to have one man
stay with a woman. Evolution isn't really that difficult to
understand - when something works it continues to be reproduced. If
monogamy produced more offspring, humans tended toward monogamy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
15 Jun 2007 07:39:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com>
wrote:
The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in
similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate
the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously
connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we
engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our
development as a species.
1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so
enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way
since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy"
splitting or not is still an open question.
2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes,
we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so
we can't use them as a model without adjustments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
16 Jun 2007 07:00:02 PM |
|
|
In article <gr1573djm5dlv7tbf35p952k56nlu3qbrm@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com>
wrote:
The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in
similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate
the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously
connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we
engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our
development as a species.
1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so
enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way
since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy"
splitting or not is still an open question.
2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes,
we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so
we can't use them as a model without adjustments.
Usually involving leather, metal, latex, lubricants and Google.
Silly bonobos. Don't know what they're missing.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
17 Jun 2007 09:47:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 15, 8:39 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:01:35 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The bonobos engage in a variety of sexual practices, and in
similar fashion to humans. So "our" sexual practices probably predate
the H/P split some 6 million years ago. AFAIK, when we consciously
connected reproduction to sexual intercourse is unknown. That we
engage in intercourse for fun was probably exploited very early in our
development as a species.
1) Those who don't enjoy reproducing usually don't reproduce, so
enjoying it is a distinct advantage. It had to have been that way
since at least the time sex came about. Whether amoebas "enjoy"
splitting or not is still an open question.
2) Although bonobos are the closest apes to us as far as sex goes,
we're a lot different from them in many ways when it comes to sex, so
we can't use them as a model without adjustments.
Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking
along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun"
which is relatively rare in the animal world. We DO share many
characteristics in sexual behaviour with the bonobos... homosexual
sex, masturbation, sex for "something"... some sort of cultural
reason, as a greeting (which I would say we don't share, unless one
considers a kiss to be sex), frequency, sex not during menses/"heat",
etc. Bonobos also have adult-juvenile sex, which is of course taboo
in hss.
Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a
biggie difference.
Humans do a LOT of things different than the average animal, which
is the entire problem for anthrolopology. How did we become who we
are... and how are we truly unique from the other animals? There is
bipedal locomotion, big brain, etc. We can't use any existing animal
other than our own selves as a model, but we can look at some common
factors and try to figure out what preceded the hss/pan split.
regards,
charles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
18 Jun 2007 09:32:21 AM |
|
|
Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking
along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun"
which is relatively rare in the animal world.
No way. Sex for fun is quite common in the natural word. In
fact, I would say that from the viewpoint of the individual animal it
is always for fun. The reproduction occurs, but the animal isn't aware
of the connection. I would say that sex where neither partner has fun
is a human invention.
Sex without no reproduction is quite common. Microorganisms like
protozoa and yeast conjugate for the purpose of exchanging genetic
material, but often there is no reproduction afterward. You just have
a different animal. In the case of yeast you have fewer animals
afterward than before (just a larger yeast cell). Animals that are
isolated masturbate. Monkeys in zoos are often seen to masturbate.
Parthenogenic lizards often have sex, it is part of their social
lives.
I am giving the most obvious examples. I wish to just point out
that the social mechanisms associated with sex are not and can not be
separated from other social interactions, even among nonhuman animals.
Of course, sex toys are a form of tool. Human beings have this
specialization in making tools. So I'll bet we are the biggest,
although I doubt the only, maker of sex toys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
18 Jun 2007 05:26:21 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 10:32 am, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well of course your first point is well made. but I was thinking
along the lines of what the original post was about. "sex for fun"
which is relatively rare in the animal world.
No way. Sex for fun is quite common in the natural word. In
fact, I would say that from the viewpoint of the individual animal it
is always for fun. The reproduction occurs, but the animal isn't aware
of the connection. I would say that sex where neither partner has fun
is a human invention.
Sex without no reproduction is quite common. Microorganisms like
protozoa and yeast conjugate for the purpose of exchanging genetic
material, but often there is no reproduction afterward. You just have
a different animal. In the case of yeast you have fewer animals
afterward than before (just a larger yeast cell). Animals that are
isolated masturbate. Monkeys in zoos are often seen to masturbate.
Parthenogenic lizards often have sex, it is part of their social
lives.
I am giving the most obvious examples. I wish to just point out
that the social mechanisms associated with sex are not and can not be
separated from other social interactions, even among nonhuman animals.
Of course, sex toys are a form of tool. Human beings have this
specialization in making tools. So I'll bet we are the biggest,
although I doubt the only, maker of sex toys.
hmmm... I don't actually disagree, but still... I am ascribing this
whole conversation to a "homo-centric" point of view... which is my
read of the original post. How do you define "fun"? Are humans or
mammals the only creatures capable of having "fun"? Is a protozoa
conscious? etc.
Your post, as written, destroys the premise of the original
research. Maybe that is a good thing, since I was having trouble with
it myself. While I believe that "sexual selection" had a lot to do
with human evolution, it is not clear and probably never will be
clear, when humans became conscious of "fun sex" and toys and
connections between sex and reproduction.
you state, "from the viewpoint of the individual animal, it is
always fun." This is slapping the face of much of biology, which
ascribes the sex drive purely to hormonal impulses. I am inclined to
agree with you, but just thought I would point out the "science" would
be in disagreement.
regards,
charles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lorentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
18 Jun 2007 05:45:42 PM |
|
|
you state, "from the viewpoint of the individual animal, it is
always fun." This is slapping the face of much of biology, which
ascribes the sex drive purely to hormonal impulses. I am inclined to
agree with you, but just thought I would point out the "science" would
be in disagreement.
Hormonal impulses are fun. No scientist, and certainly not the
abstraction "science," would disagree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
18 Jun 2007 08:11:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:47:19 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com>
wrote:
Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a
biggie difference.
We do just about everything that requires a lack of being fully
clothed in private. But that's societal, it has nothing to do with
species. There have been many human societies that considered nudity,
sex and elimination of wastes not something to be hidden, just as
there have been some that considered almost any show of skin
scandalous.
Humans do a LOT of things different than the average animal, which
is the entire problem for anthrolopology. How did we become who we
are... and how are we truly unique from the other animals?
We're not, unless you compare us to one species at a time. But, then,
most species have differences from other species.
There is bipedal locomotion, big brain, etc.
Brain size, even compared to body size, doesn't seem to have any
direct correlation to intelligence.
We can't use any existing animal other than our own selves as a mode
but we can look at some common
factors and try to figure out what preceded the hss/pan split.
Exactly my point. What we have in common with bonobos most likely
came from our common ancestors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
18 Jun 2007 10:46:48 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 9:11 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:47:19 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a
biggie difference.
We do just about everything that requires a lack of being fully
clothed in private. But that's societal, it has nothing to do with
species. There have been many human societies that considered nudity,
sex and elimination of wastes not something to be hidden, just as
there have been some that considered almost any show of skin
scandalous.
Can you source this idea? ... my memory is vague on sources, but from
way back in my anthropology/sociology courses in college, it was
frequently mentioned that there were, or are, only a few things that
are universal in humans. One was some form of hide and seek as a
childhood game. another was a taboo on cannibalism. and a third was
that people tend to have intercourse in private. There are some
more, but this is sorta' the highlights, as i recall them.
Oh, and just as an example of how things can get wacky if we look
just at the modern age and our culture. We think that the norm for
humans is eight solid hours of sleep every night. Perhaps it is. I
LIKE my eight hours every night! However, historians have discovered
that in the middle ages, many people would wake up in the middle of
the night.... after some 4 hours of sleep... and eat... then go back
to sleep for a few more hours. My reason for pointing this out is
that sure... lotsa' cultures a million years ago may have had sex
freely and in the open... in front of everybody. who knows? But "sex
in private" probably dates at least to our earliest hss ancestor some
200 kya, since it is assumed to be a universal trait in all cultures.
You are saying that is baloney. source? I am aware of the swinger
culture, and similiar behaviours... but that is relatively fringe.
off to my eight hours...
regards,
charles
Humans do a LOT of things different than the average animal, which
is the entire problem for anthrolopology. How did we become who we
are... and how are we truly unique from the other animals?
We're not, unless you compare us to one species at a time. But, then,
most species have differences from other species.
There is bipedal locomotion, big brain, etc.
Brain size, even compared to body size, doesn't seem to have any
direct correlation to intelligence.
We can't use any existing animal other than our own selves as a mode
but we can look at some common
factors and try to figure out what preceded the hss/pan split.
Exactly my point. What we have in common with bonobos most likely
came from our common ancestors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
19 Jun 2007 07:55:05 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:46:48 -0000, charles <charles.uzzell@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:11 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:47:19 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a
biggie difference.
We do just about everything that requires a lack of being fully
clothed in private. But that's societal, it has nothing to do with
species. There have been many human societies that considered nudity,
sex and elimination of wastes not something to be hidden, just as
there have been some that considered almost any show of skin
scandalous.
Can you source this idea?
Can I source what idea? That there have been human societies with no,
or minimal, nudity taboos? Borneo comes immediately to mind.
way back in my anthropology/sociology courses in college, it was
frequently mentioned that there were, or are, only a few things that
are universal in humans. One was some form of hide and seek as a
childhood game. another was a taboo on cannibalism. and a third was
that people tend to have intercourse in private.
Trobriand Islanders. Margaret Mead.
Oh, and just as an example of how things can get wacky if we look
just at the modern age and our culture. We think that the norm for
humans is eight solid hours of sleep every night. Perhaps it is. I
LIKE my eight hours every night! However, historians have discovered
that in the middle ages, many people would wake up in the middle of
the night.... after some 4 hours of sleep... and eat... then go back
to sleep for a few more hours.
Primitives, otoh, tend to be diurnal. Eight hours of sleep in the
summer, 16 hours of sleep in the winter.
My reason for pointing this out is
that sure... lotsa' cultures a million years ago may have had sex
freely and in the open... in front of everybody. who knows? But "sex
in private" probably dates at least to our earliest hss ancestor some
200 kya, since it is assumed to be a universal trait in all cultures.
It's not, so the conjecture based on the premise has nothing to be
based on. It's pretty widespread, but it's not universal, so it's
societal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun |
19 Jun 2007 08:28:11 PM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 8:55 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:46:48 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:11 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 02:47:19 -0000, charles <charles.uzz...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Humans cross-culturally seem to have "sex in private" which is a
biggie difference.
We do just about everything that requires a lack of being fully
clothed in private. But that's societal, it has nothing to do with
species. There have been many human societies that considered nudity,
sex and elimination of wastes not something to be hidden, just as
there have been some that considered almost any show of skin
scandalous.
Can you source this idea?
Can I source what idea? That there have been human societies with no,
or minimal, nudity taboos? Borneo comes immediately to mind.
way back in my anthropology/sociology courses in college, it was
frequently mentioned that there were, or are, only a few things that
are universal in humans. One was some form of hide and seek as a
childhood game. another was a taboo on cannibalism. and a third was
that people tend to have intercourse in private.
Trobriand Islanders. Margaret Mead.
Oh, and just as an example of how things can get wacky if we look
just at the modern age and our culture. We think that the norm for
humans is eight solid hours of sleep every night. Perhaps it is. I
LIKE my eight hours every night! However, historians have discovered
that in the middle ages, many people would wake up in the middle of
the night.... after some 4 hours of sleep... and eat... then go back
to sleep for a few more hours.
Primitives, otoh, tend to be diurnal. Eight hours of sleep in the
summer, 16 hours of sleep in the winter.
My reason for pointing this out is
that sure... lotsa' cultures a million years ago may have had sex
freely and in the open... in front of everybody. who knows? But "sex
in private" probably dates at least to our earliest hss ancestor some
200 kya, since it is assumed to be a universal trait in all cultures.
It's not, so the conjecture based on the premise has nothing to be
based on. It's pretty widespread, but it's not universal, so it's
societal.
Okay... I concede your point, assuming that I can go to the source and
find some spot in their where Mead talks about non-private
intercourse. (I have not talked about nudity taboos.) Meanwhile,
found this snippett on the internet that is relevant:
"Evolutionary psychologists may argue that patterns of mate selection,
gender differences, and even ideals of beauty are universally
inscribed in human genes, but most contemporary biological and social
scientists believe that whatever the role of biology-and many consider
that role significant-it never manifests itself in pure form,
untouched by the guiding, shaping, and disciplining hand of culture."
http://science.jrank.org/pages/8479/Body-Culturally-Variable-Bodies.html
This is my last post that will be crossposted... that is "against my
religion" and was not noticed on my first post in this thread.
regards,
charles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
