NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that there is new evidence that suggests that cavemen and their ladies didn't just have sex for reproductive reasons but rather also for social contact and development.

Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269115,00.html)

And the best part is.... my source is FOX. :p :eek:

He may have come down from the trees, but prehistoric man did not stop swinging. New research into Stone Age humans has argued that, far from having intercourse simply to reproduce, they had sex for fun.

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.

It's from a right wing site, so no one can accuse me of posting something that has a liberal or left bias! :)

Isn't that kind of a "No shit" thing? Why do they think human males stuck around if they weren't getting any?

It seems that there is new evidence that suggests that cavemen and their ladies didn't just have sex for reproductive reasons but rather also for social contact and development.

Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269115,00.html)

And the best part is.... my source is FOX. :p :eek:



It's from a right wing site, so no one can accuse me of posting something that has a liberal or left bias! :)

Alright, this is news to me... not the whole having sex for fun thing, but instead the sex toys, bondage, etc. Never knew that... Interesting.

How did cavemen do transvestism? I mean, weren't they all wearing basically the same thing?

How did cavemen do transvestism? I mean, weren't they all wearing basically the same thing?

Roleplaying perhaps? One would act similar to a female/male...

That's what I assume, anyway.

And, depending on the age, they didn't necessarily wear the same thing. Fashion did exist, and females/males did wear different things. Not sure the major differences between different fashions in prehistoric times, though.

Roleplaying perhaps? One would act similar to a female/male...

That's what I assume, anyway.

Maybe they'd start gathering instead of hunting.

Ah cavemen, they have so much to teach us.

the "widespread assumption" that prehistoric sex was only for reproductive purposes seems to me to be stupid on the face of it.

how the hell do you have reproductive sex when you dont know that sex causes babies?

until you fully understand the link between sex and pregnancy, you have no incentive to control the sexual behavior of anyone. once the link is understood it can be vital to decide who gets to screw whom.

I thought that the current prevailing theory was that most prehistoric humans had no idea of the relationship between sex and reproduction. It wasn't until humans began engaging in animal husbandry that the relationship was discovered.

Consequently, this should come as no surprise that prehistoric humans engaged in sex only for enjoyment. Why else would you do it?

I thought that the current prevailing theory was that most prehistoric humans had no idea of the relationship between sex and reproduction. It wasn't until humans began engaging in animal husbandry that the relationship was discovered.

That doesn't sound too good, given the context.

Cavemen - liberal sickos.

Cavemen - liberal sickos.

Proof the liberals are even more conservative than the conservatives!

"Nice club. Let's fuck." :)

"Nice club. Let's fuck." :)

"My cave or yours?"

That doesn't sound too good, given the context.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but it seems more amusing htis way.

This explains what I meant:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_210.html

Perhaps I should have been more clear, but it seems more amusing htis way.

This explains what I meant:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_210.html

I know what animal husbandry is.

One of the primary reasons for settling down for farming was to facilitate the ease of access to ready mates...so why shouldn't we assume that those early farmers predecessors liked some below-the-belt action as well?

the "widespread assumption" that prehistoric sex was only for reproductive purposes seems to me to be stupid on the face of it.

how the hell do you have reproductive sex when you dont know that sex causes babies?

until you fully understand the link between sex and pregnancy, you have no incentive to control the sexual behavior of anyone. once the link is understood it can be vital to decide who gets to screw whom.

Actually, this is a good point. There was a tribe of people living on an island off of the northern coast of Australia for quite some time(Thousands of people-never discovered they lived there until fairly recently, due to various factors). Anyway, they never understood the relationship between sex and reproduction, and came to the conclusion that women became pregnant due to spirits enterring their body. This line of thinking is justified, because contrary to popular belief, sex actually somewhat rarely leads to pregnancy. Think about it. How many times does a person have sex compared to how many times a person gets pregnant. The ratio is far in the favor of times having sex. Anywho, due to this, they have sex strictly for pleasure, and didn't associate it with pregnancy.

It seems that there is new evidence that suggests that cavemen and their ladies didn't just have sex for reproductive reasons but rather also for social contact and development.

Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269115,00.html)

And the best part is.... my source is FOX. :p :eek:



It's from a right wing site, so no one can accuse me of posting something that has a liberal or left bias! :)



OMG that is sofa king hot!

Actually, this is a good point. There was a tribe of people living on an island off of the northern coast of Australia for quite some time(Thousands of people-never discovered they lived there until fairly recently, due to various factors). Anyway, they never understood the relationship between sex and reproduction, and came to the conclusion that women became pregnant due to spirits enterring their body. This line of thinking is justified, because contrary to popular belief, sex actually somewhat rarely leads to pregnancy. Think about it. How many times does a person have sex compared to how many times a person gets pregnant. The ratio is far in the favor of times having sex. Anywho, due to this, they have sex strictly for pleasure, and didn't associate it with pregnancy.

yeah, and to deny a bit of my original post, a society probably HAS to have some kind of restrictions on who can have sex and when (at least for females) before it is obvious that its the sex that leads to pregnancy.

if you are screwing all the time (and some of the more "primitive" people today have sex several times a day) how would you guess that ONE sex act 9 month earlier is what started THIS soon-to-be-born baby?

Humans are very cool monkeys.

Alright, this is news to me... not the whole having sex for fun thing, but instead the sex toys, bondage, etc. Never knew that... Interesting.

me too... now I'm picturing some archiological site finding dildos, primative whips and bindings and other... 'tools'...

Ah cavemen, they have so much to teach us.

Now, i'm getting a totally different type of commercial from those GEICO Cavemen...

Humans are very cool monkeys.
Pans Narrans
*nods*

Now, i'm getting a totally different type of commercial from those GEICO Cavemen...

GEICO cavemen porn?

Man I'm glad I'm not the only one to think of that. Hahaha

In other news, the Dept of the Freaking obvious announced today that water is wet. And Lake Michigan is composed mainly of wet stuff!

I mean, humans have been having sex for fun since humans came about. (Pun intended...)

"My cave or yours?"

"The mountain over there. But watch for the deer!"

I wonder if they made any porn.... (http://www.smthop.com/images/neolith01.jpg)

:( I was expecting more (and cavemen are fucked up)

I wonder if they made any porn.... (http://www.smthop.com/images/neolith01.jpg)

:( I was expecting more (and cavemen are fucked up)

Is that an elk in your pants?

Don't let Ruffy know about this. I can imagine what will happen next. It will be Apocolyptic in scope and in magnitude.

There was probably a lot of rape and sexual assault as well. Without legal protection, how could a women even protest?

Oops, did I ruin everyone's fun?

It seems that there is new evidence that suggests that cavemen and their ladies didn't just have sex for reproductive reasons but rather also for social contact and development.

Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269115,00.html)

And the best part is.... my source is FOX. :p :eek:



It's from a right wing site, so no one can accuse me of posting something that has a liberal or left bias! :)

Bah! everyone knows there were no cavemen...God created Adam and Eve in his image...Eve bit the apple..yada yada yada...Here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=s3KwukCdJk0)...

Roleplaying perhaps? One would act similar to a female/male...

That's what I assume, anyway.

And, depending on the age, they didn't necessarily wear the same thing. Fashion did exist, and females/males did wear different things. Not sure the major differences between different fashions in prehistoric times, though.

Yeah, the females wore skirts while the mean were naked.

me too... now I'm picturing some archiological site finding dildos, primative whips and bindings and other... 'tools'...

Phone call from 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4713323.stm). They want their news back.

There was probably a lot of rape and sexual assault as well. Without legal protection, how could a women even protest?

Oops, did I ruin everyone's fun?of course not.
can you provide some pictures ;) :p

How did cavemen do transvestism? I mean, weren't they all wearing basically the same thing?

Tucking it in?

This bit of "news", or rather the report it's based on, is riddled with holes. I think that "carved stone statues of busty women + ding-a-lings = sex for fun!" is a highly dubious argument - it's far more likely evidence for a fertility cult of some sort. I don't think you can argue that it's evidence of sex for fun.

Secondly, evidence from "primitive" peoples. There were no ethnographers about 40,000 years ago or thereabouts when people are thought to have become mentally modern, so we have no access to primitive man. We do have access to uncivilized (in the literal sense of the word) and non-agricultural peoples, but mentally they're no more primitive than any schlob in a city somewhere. To think that "non-agricultural people = grunting, savage ape-man" is mentally primitive.

Thirdly, I have very strong doubts that sex for fun is in any way a recent development, particularly because one of our close relatives, the bonobo chimpanzee, is all about sex for fun.

Fourthly, that anybody could fail to grasp the link between sex and reproduction is inconceivable; I'd attribute this sort of thing much more strongly to ethnographic error, scholars not understanding or mistranslating whoever they're talking to. Also, imagine if some foreign guy comes up to you and asks, through an interpreter, where babies come from. The temptation to spin him a tall one is clearly evident.

So in conclusion, yes we were having sex for fun back then - but this report isn't evidence of it.

Fourthly, that anybody could fail to grasp the link between sex and reproduction is inconceivable; I'd attribute this sort of thing much more strongly to ethnographic error, scholars not understanding or mistranslating whoever they're talking to. Also, imagine if some foreign guy comes up to you and asks, through an interpreter, where babies come from. The temptation to spin him a tall one is clearly evident.

So in conclusion, yes we were having sex for fun back then - but this report isn't evidence of it.

Er... no. It happens. Usually in isolated populations, with hunter/gatherer type societies. Most peoples with any contact with other people, however, are a different story all together. We're talking about extremely isolated peoples here.

Really, it's not a surprising notion, even. If you have sex 100 times before getting pregnant, it's not necessarily out of the realm of possibility that someone would correlate the two.

yes we were having sex for fun back then - but this report isn't evidence of it.true true

How did cavemen do transvestism? I mean, weren't they all wearing basically the same thing?

It was the perfume and eye shadow. *nods*