4 ms·

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinct

by jgj 13y ago

> it is at least as likely that the statues are porn as that they are representations of powerful goddesses I'm not so sure there is or needs to be a distinction between the two. Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it for both its pleasure- and life-giving properties.

mmatants 13y ago
Reverence is the debatable aspect here. Statue of a goddess implies respect, pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship. So if we draw conclusions about the role of women in that society, interpreting statues as porn versus pedestals makes a difference.
- abduhl 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but when did pornography start implying objectification? Last I checked, both men and women watched porn.
  - speeder 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but when objectification started implying it was a gendered thing? Last I checked both men and women could objectify other people.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jgj 13y ago
  > pornography implies objectification That's a very modern application of those words. The very act of creating a statue is (true) objectification, whether it was carried out due to respect or solely to titillate. I'm not convinced that both cannot be true of the same statue. And the modern concept of pornography means very little when framed in a pre-Judeo-Christian world. I doubt any of our loin-clothed ancestors shared the shame-based perspective 21st century humans have on the human body. No doubt some statues/drawings of vulvae were made because vulvae were fun things to interact with, and some were made because they were meant to be revered; I'd argue that it's possible for some percentage of those works of art to be motivated by both respect and eroticism, and further that the two motivations need not be considered so inherently at odds.
  - Zimahl 13y ago
    I agree. Making a statue in ancient times wasn't cheap or easy. Cheap in the aspect of always living on the edge of life, where a bad season could decimate a living group, and having time to do so. Easy in that tools weren't readily available to get it done quickly. I don't think anyone was just swinging in a hammock on a lazy Sunday - there were no lazy Sundays. From that you can most likely assume that statues had purpose and significance. They weren't just put up for titillation which is really all modern porn is today.
    - wisty 13y ago
      Hunter gatherers may have worked far fewer hours than agrarian societies, especially if they had just had a decent haul.
  - thwest 13y ago
    > That's a very modern application of those words. It follows from your argument that because our ancestors didn't share an evolutionary perspective, modern humans describing our ancestors in evolutionary terms is less meaningful. Put another way, when modern humans describe the process of objectification, it matters not at all if the objectifier says to themselves "I sure am making an object out of this".
- im3w1l 13y ago
  >pornography implies objectification what exactly do you mean by this?
  - mseebach 13y ago
    The idea is that porn reduces the actors in it to objects that exists solely to be exploited for the pleasure of others. It is often combined with unease over the power relationship implied, typically of women being subject to men. The main counter to this is that it's fiction and the actors are consenting adults, and that the only material difference between porn and other crappy fictional films is prudish judgment of (primarily) women's sexual behavior.
    - lifebar 13y ago
      "porn reduces the actors in it to objects that exists solely to be exploited for the pleasure of others." 1. They are not objectified. Recording is created of sex/nudity that is object, not actors "reduced" to objects. And also, last time I checked - humans were objects. Whole sentence is wrong. 2. Pay me as much as women in porn are payed... "typically of women being subject to men." You are not watching enough porn. In most porn women are the ones initiating sex, and men just plays along. It's your personal problem if you are watching male on female BDSM.
- stinos 13y ago
  > pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship that's way too general. There's enough pornography out there, recent and old, where people are just having nice sex without there being some sort of power/dominating relationship nor where things get objectified to the extreme.
- dspeyer 13y ago
  > pornography implies objectification It really doesn't. People can relate to porn in many ways. Unless the definition of "objectification" is so broad as to make the statement meaningless.
zeteo 13y ago
>Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it It was not until 1677 [1] that people started to discover how reproduction works beyond "penis goes in, life comes out". Yet there are no major religions documented before that (in about 5000 years of recorded history) which revered crude vulva drawings. Whereas pornographic graffiti has been widespread everywhere from the streets of Ancient Rome [2] to modern boys' bathrooms. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek#Discoveries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek#Discove... [2]http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%2...
- sageikosa 13y ago
  I'm no anthropologist, but the document leaving religions were social organizing at broader scales (market communities and early cities) than the basic coming of age rituals/education that were best left to family, clan and kin (hunters, herders and farmers).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jgj 13y ago
  First and foremost, the 2nd link you posted is full of hilarious; thanks for sharing. > II.7 (gladiator barracks); 8767: Floronius, privileged soldier of the 7th legion, was here. The women did not know of his presence. Only six women came to know, too few for such a stallion. I don't know that I'm arguing for anything 'major' or 'documented'; for any specific religion or culture; or for anything at all beyond the fact that crude vulva drawings can be either or simultaneously a show of reverence and sexual interest. That we (meaning largely post-Testament historians) haven't documented the intentions of ancient cave-artists as being born of such duality is hardly evidence against that possibility.

by jgj 13y ago

mmatants 13y ago

Reverence is the debatable aspect here. Statue of a goddess implies respect, pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship. So if we draw conclusions about the role of women in that society, interpreting statues as porn versus pedestals makes a difference.

abduhl 13y ago
I'm sorry, but when did pornography start implying objectification? Last I checked, both men and women watched porn.
- speeder 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but when objectification started implying it was a gendered thing? Last I checked both men and women could objectify other people.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jgj 13y ago
> pornography implies objectification That's a very modern application of those words. The very act of creating a statue is (true) objectification, whether it was carried out due to respect or solely to titillate. I'm not convinced that both cannot be true of the same statue. And the modern concept of pornography means very little when framed in a pre-Judeo-Christian world. I doubt any of our loin-clothed ancestors shared the shame-based perspective 21st century humans have on the human body. No doubt some statues/drawings of vulvae were made because vulvae were fun things to interact with, and some were made because they were meant to be revered; I'd argue that it's possible for some percentage of those works of art to be motivated by both respect and eroticism, and further that the two motivations need not be considered so inherently at odds.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  I agree. Making a statue in ancient times wasn't cheap or easy. Cheap in the aspect of always living on the edge of life, where a bad season could decimate a living group, and having time to do so. Easy in that tools weren't readily available to get it done quickly. I don't think anyone was just swinging in a hammock on a lazy Sunday - there were no lazy Sundays. From that you can most likely assume that statues had purpose and significance. They weren't just put up for titillation which is really all modern porn is today.
  - wisty 13y ago
    Hunter gatherers may have worked far fewer hours than agrarian societies, especially if they had just had a decent haul.
- thwest 13y ago
  > That's a very modern application of those words. It follows from your argument that because our ancestors didn't share an evolutionary perspective, modern humans describing our ancestors in evolutionary terms is less meaningful. Put another way, when modern humans describe the process of objectification, it matters not at all if the objectifier says to themselves "I sure am making an object out of this".
im3w1l 13y ago
>pornography implies objectification what exactly do you mean by this?
- mseebach 13y ago
  The idea is that porn reduces the actors in it to objects that exists solely to be exploited for the pleasure of others. It is often combined with unease over the power relationship implied, typically of women being subject to men. The main counter to this is that it's fiction and the actors are consenting adults, and that the only material difference between porn and other crappy fictional films is prudish judgment of (primarily) women's sexual behavior.
  - lifebar 13y ago
    "porn reduces the actors in it to objects that exists solely to be exploited for the pleasure of others." 1. They are not objectified. Recording is created of sex/nudity that is object, not actors "reduced" to objects. And also, last time I checked - humans were objects. Whole sentence is wrong. 2. Pay me as much as women in porn are payed... "typically of women being subject to men." You are not watching enough porn. In most porn women are the ones initiating sex, and men just plays along. It's your personal problem if you are watching male on female BDSM.
stinos 13y ago
> pornography implies objectification and a very different power relationship that's way too general. There's enough pornography out there, recent and old, where people are just having nice sex without there being some sort of power/dominating relationship nor where things get objectified to the extreme.
dspeyer 13y ago
> pornography implies objectification It really doesn't. People can relate to porn in many ways. Unless the definition of "objectification" is so broad as to make the statement meaningless.

zeteo 13y ago

>Penis goes in, life comes out. You can't explain that. Well, paleolithic man couldn't. But they could draw/sculpt it and revere it It was not until 1677 [1] that people started to discover how reproduction works beyond "penis goes in, life comes out". Yet there are no major religions documented before that (in about 5000 years of recorded history) which revered crude vulva drawings. Whereas pornographic graffiti has been widespread everywhere from the streets of Ancient Rome [2] to modern boys' bathrooms. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek#Discoveries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek#Discove... [2]http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%2...

sageikosa 13y ago
I'm no anthropologist, but the document leaving religions were social organizing at broader scales (market communities and early cities) than the basic coming of age rituals/education that were best left to family, clan and kin (hunters, herders and farmers).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jgj 13y ago
First and foremost, the 2nd link you posted is full of hilarious; thanks for sharing. > II.7 (gladiator barracks); 8767: Floronius, privileged soldier of the 7th legion, was here. The women did not know of his presence. Only six women came to know, too few for such a stallion. I don't know that I'm arguing for anything 'major' or 'documented'; for any specific religion or culture; or for anything at all beyond the fact that crude vulva drawings can be either or simultaneously a show of reverence and sexual interest. That we (meaning largely post-Testament historians) haven't documented the intentions of ancient cave-artists as being born of such duality is hardly evidence against that possibility.