Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun

[Simple_lan]

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.

[Al Klein]

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 dildo? 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.

[Day Brown]

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
piss 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.

[Charles]

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/0,356-
> >6,269115,00.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 dildo? 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.

[Fred A Sto]

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cdt3739rtg1fcn26nfov65e2af0keero19@4ax.com...

It's not likely, did you ever smell one of them?

[Atheist Ar]

"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.

[Sasha]

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
ass became a mounted hill decoration, you look like a retard
making a comment like "were you there?"

[Spiznet]

and profit!

[Al Klein]

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.

[Al Klein]

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.

[Connie]

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 piss 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.

[Day Brown]

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 piss 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.

[Tiktaalik]

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
> ass 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).

[Charles]

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

[Lorentz]

> 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.

[Charles]

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.

[Chibiabos]

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

[Atheist Ar]

"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 piss 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.

[Al Klein]

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.

[Al Klein]

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.

[Lorentz]

> 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.

[Charles]

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

[Nosterill]

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 ;-)

[Pete]

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?

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