> The theory that the statues are a form of pornography is not particularly
> far-fetched and I'm amazed that anyone scoffs at it.  Males appear to be
> genetically prone to being sexually aroused by visual stimulus, and
> masturbation (especially among young men) is about as natural and universal
> as anything in human behavior.  "Porn is about profit" is an interesting
> political formulation but it really doesn't apply to reality.  Every young
> man with a modicum of artistic talent I ever knew loved to draw pictures of
> naked women.  There's a certain age where the fascination with this kind of
> thing is absolutely ubiquitous.  I don't know that I would endorse this
> theory but it's really not silly or outrageous.
>
Boy, I sure hope we're not going too far with this one!  The
predelictions of young men surely aren't in question, but what if the
artists were women?  Bringing forth life is surely a desirable
social activity, in moderation, and the *ability* to bring forth life
is IMHO worth appreciating.  The practice of bringing modern concerns
to bear on evaluating archaeological data can easily be over done.
The idea of modern notions of pornography (whatever side of the
issues raised by use of this loaded term) being exactly relevant to
paleolithic social structures seems rather, uh, ahem, unuseful, to
me.  Also rather ahistorical, given the vast diversity of climatic,
dietary, and physical situations represented by the evidence.

Molly NiDana
[log in to unmask]