Oh, those kinky cavemen

[Vermilion]

Has anyone here read the Earth Children series by Jean Auel?
Book 1 of the series for the Americans
Book 1 of the series for the Brits

They're amazing books about a woman called Ayla living in the Ice Age, just as the Neanderthals and dying out and the Cro Magnons are rising to supremacy. Her books are scarily well researched and provide fantastic descriptions of the land, food, societies and animals of that time.

Well worth reading if you're interested in prehistoric society, even if it's just so you can disagree with them
x
V

 

[john-the-author]

Judging from the behavior of hunter gatherer groups, it is a bit simpler than that. In a hunter gatherer group, the men hunt animals. Sometine the animals hunt back. If a man does not return from the hunt, he leaves a woman and, perhaps a child. If each man in the hunter gatherer band thinks he may have been the father, the woman and child are assured of meat from the hunt. There is only one way that each man thinks he may have been the father.

In fact, RR, female chimpanzees go into a false estrus cycle when they're about 5 months pregnant so they get a second set of males involved as father figures. Crudely, they're trapping another set of males into thinking they have to pay child support, too. But the evolutionary & survival value of this is obvious. (Don't know if this is the case with other primates, but it might be. I know that humans are relatively unusual in having no estrus cycle related to interest--that is, they can and will have sex at any time as opposed to *just* at a specific point in the fertility cycle of the female.

I wouldn't be at all surprised for something like this to have been happening in early humans: more males thinking they're the father would mean tighter bonding in the group.

 

[cloudy]

I wouldn't be at all surprised for something like this to have been happening in early humans: more males thinking they're the father would mean tighter bonding in the group.

No. Your education is sadly lacking. Read what 3113 has said above. You are overestimating early humans knowledge of reproduction.

In most societies, the children belonged only to their mother, and their mother's clan. Men weren't even responsible for raising any children except those of their sisters.

Still works that way in some societies. I am Choctaw because my mother is Choctaw, and her mother before her, regardless of who my father is. I belong to the Deer Clan for the same reason, and so do my children.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The oldest swingers: sex games of Stone Age exposed

Roger Dobson

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.

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.

Timothy Taylor, reader in archeology at Bradford University, reviewed evidence from dozens of archeological finds and scientific studies for his research.

“The widespread lay belief that sex in the past was predominantly heterosexual and reproductive can be challenged,” said Taylor.

What a CROCK! Who, other than Timothy Taylor, ever believed that prehistoric man was monogamous? That is nothing new. It's been understood for more than one hundred years. And what evidence does he have for sex parties, bondage, etc? A stone icon which he believes to have been a dildo? One of many gravid female statues? That's not evidence, just speculation.

Taylor is another of that group of quasi-archeologists who have never picked up a shovel in their lives, but haunt the museums making up fantastical theories based on the misinturpretation of the work of others, picking a piece here, another piece there to fit their own misconceptions.

When talking about Bush and his presidency, we call this "Cherry Picking."

The Venus of Willendorf was found in a hunter gatherer site nearly one hundred years ago. It's not the only statue like this. In fact, similar statues have been found in the remains of early european farming settlements. The Greek goddess Aphrodite and the Roman Venus are direct extensions of these statues. Under the Egyptian Pharaoh, Hatshepsut, there was a drunken sex festival in honor of Mut. If you want more examples, read Heroditus Histories.

And this behavior only existed in hunter gatherer cultures? This is another one of those fabulous "discoveries" that will be torn to shreds during peer review. This man's an idiot.

 

[R. Richard]

In most societies, the children belonged only to their mother, and their mother's clan. Men weren't even responsible for raising any children except those of their sisters.

You are actually making my point here. In many primitive tribes it was not possible to determine/not understood who the father was. Thus, the woman who lived with a man and tended his fire might or might not have his children. However, the children of a man's sister would have at least one quarter of his genes. Thus, helping with the raising of his sister's children was perpetuating his genes, a key male concern. The pattern of helping to raise the children of a man's sister was a prominent one among the early-contact Polynesians who were never sure who was the father of any child.

It is possible to take the view that some primitives didn't know exactly how babies came to be, however, there had to be individuals who observed that only women who had sex with men had babies. At least some of those men would draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[cloudy]

You are actually making my point here. In many primitive tribes it was not possible to determine/not understood who the father was. Thus, the woman who lived with a man and tended his fire might or might not have his children. However, the children of a man's sister would have at least one quarter of his genes. Thus, helping with the raising of his sister's children was perpetuating his genes, a key male concern. The pattern of helping to raise the children of a man's sister was a prominent one among the early-contact Polynesians who were never sure who was the father of any child.

It is possible to take the view that some primitives didn't know exactly how babies came to be, however, there had to be individuals who observed that only women who had sex with men had babies. At least some of those men would draw the obvious conclusion.

Again, no.

As Liar previously stated, the primary concern wasn't "perpetuating his genes," but instead was the well-being of the tribe. The tribe was all, because the only chance of survival was the survival of the tribe. That's why the worst punishment possible was to be declared "dead" by your tribe. No other would take you without tribal/clan affiliations, even up until fairly recently. That's also partly why, even today, when two natives meet, they immediately start discussing tribe, clan, familial associations - we are discussing our relation, per se, to others. We are getting a sense of each other.

You are attributing modern feelings to a society that is far, far different than that you are used to. You don't get it, and that's okay, but don't presume that you do.

 

[Guest]

Has anyone here read the Earth Children series by Jean Auel?
They're amazing books about a woman called Ayla living in the Ice Age,

I read the first two, but stopped after Ayla invented the blow job at the end of book 2.

I'm eternally grateful to her.

That isn't a joke. She did.

 

[Dar~]

I read the first two, but stopped after Ayla invented the blow job at the end of book 2.

I'm eternally grateful to her.

That isn't a joke. She did.

They are good books aside from and including the sex. The seventh and final one is due out someitme soon. In the Eighties it got put on a banned book list, but my mom HAD to read The Clan of the Cave Bear in high school.

 

[3113]

Has anyone here read the Earth Children series by Jean Auel?They're amazing books

Amazing, no, have to disagree with you there. The first one is a good read and well researched. From there on, they're just romances in prehistoric society--and not very good ones either. At one point I was stuck at someone's house wanting to read something and I tried the first chapter of the "Mammoth" book (3rd book?) which they had on hand. It was dreadful. Absolutely dreadful. Like it was written by a self-indulgent 12-year-old.

 

[cloudy]

Amazing, no, have to disagree with you there. The first one is a good read and well researched. From there on, they're just romances in prehistoric society--and not very good ones either. At one point I was stuck at someone's house wanting to read something and I tried the first chapter of the "Mammoth" book (3rd book?) which they had on hand. It was dreadful. Absolutely dreadful. Like it was written by a self-indulgent 12-year-old.

I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. The rest are just prehistoric versions of Barbara Carltand.

 

[R. Richard]

Again, no.

As Liar previously stated, the primary concern wasn't "perpetuating his genes," but instead was the well-being of the tribe. The tribe was all, because the only chance of survival was the survival of the tribe. That's why the worst punishment possible was to be declared "dead" by your tribe. No other would take you without tribal/clan affiliations, even up until fairly recently. That's also partly why, even today, when two natives meet, they immediately start discussing tribe, clan, familial associations - we are discussing our relation, per se, to others. We are getting a sense of each other.

You are attributing modern feelings to a society that is far, far different than that you are used to. You don't get it, and that's okay, but don't presume that you do.

I again must disagree with you. I actually have some experience with hunter/getherer people. Yes, the tribe/clan membership is very important. However, something that I suspect that neither you or Liar know is that primitive hunter/gatherer tribes 'swap children.' Two hunter gatherer tribes will meet at some point and they will swap a girl child or two if they both have girls of an age to be separated from their mothers. The reason is, of course, to prevent inbreeding. They almost never swap boys, because boys become contributors fairly early in hunter/gatherer cultures and they are too valuable to swap.

I suspect that the child swap thing actually took place even among tribes that had no idea how babies were born, much less genetics. However, a hunter/gatherer tribe really can't get much beyond a couple of dozen individuals, since the lifestyle will not support a band of more than about that many. A band of a couple of dozen individuals gets inbred very quickly. Inbred children tend to be stupid. The stupid do not survive long in a hunter/gatherer culture.

 

[cloudy]

I again must disagree with you. I actually have some experience with hunter/getherer people. Yes, the tribe/clan membership is very important. However, something that I suspect that neither you or Liar know is that primitive hunter/gatherer tribes 'swap children.' Two hunter gatherer tribes will meet at some point and they will swap a girl child or two if they both have girls of an age to be separated from their mothers. The reason is, of course, to prevent inbreeding. They almost never swap boys, because boys become contributors fairly early in hunter/gatherer cultures and they are too valuable to swap.

I suspect that the child swap thing actually took place even among tribes that had no idea how babies were born, much less genetics. However, a hunter/gatherer tribe really can't get much beyond a couple of dozen individuals, since the lifestyle will not support a band of more than about that many. A band of a couple of dozen individuals gets inbred very quickly. Inbred children tend to be stupid. The stupid do not survive long in a hunter/gatherer culture.

okay, sure. You know so much more about it than I possibly can, mm-hmm. You know everything about tribal life, and I know nothing, even though that's my heritage, and not yours.

*sigh*

I give up. It's impossible to educate someone who is already convinced that they know everything. Next you'll be telling Liar what life is really like in Sweden, and Zade what it's really like to be a lesbian.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

I again must disagree with you. I actually have some experience with hunter/getherer people. Yes, the tribe/clan membership is very important. However, something that I suspect that neither you or Liar know is that primitive hunter/gatherer tribes 'swap children.' Two hunter gatherer tribes will meet at some point and they will swap a girl child or two if they both have girls of an age to be separated from their mothers. The reason is, of course, to prevent inbreeding. They almost never swap boys, because boys become contributors fairly early in hunter/gatherer cultures and they are too valuable to swap.

I suspect that the child swap thing actually took place even among tribes that had no idea how babies were born, much less genetics. However, a hunter/gatherer tribe really can't get much beyond a couple of dozen individuals, since the lifestyle will not support a band of more than about that many. A band of a couple of dozen individuals gets inbred very quickly. Inbred children tend to be stupid. The stupid do not survive long in a hunter/gatherer culture.

Dude seriously, for all your knowledge you might be talking out your ass a little tincy wincy bit. No offence meant of course. My grandmother would roll in her grave over some of the things you have said.

*gets off her high horse and gets out of the thread*

 

[FatDino]

I again must disagree with you. I actually have some experience with hunter/getherer people. Yes, the tribe/clan membership is very important. However, something that I suspect that neither you or Liar know is that primitive hunter/gatherer tribes 'swap children.' Two hunter gatherer tribes will meet at some point and they will swap a girl child or two if they both have girls of an age to be separated from their mothers. The reason is, of course, to prevent inbreeding. They almost never swap boys, because boys become contributors fairly early in hunter/gatherer cultures and they are too valuable to swap.

I suspect that the child swap thing actually took place even among tribes that had no idea how babies were born, much less genetics. However, a hunter/gatherer tribe really can't get much beyond a couple of dozen individuals, since the lifestyle will not support a band of more than about that many. A band of a couple of dozen individuals gets inbred very quickly. Inbred children tend to be stupid. The stupid do not survive long in a hunter/gatherer culture.

Uh huh...And this is relevant to the main discussion...how?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree. I thoroughly enjoyed the first one. The rest are just prehistoric versions of Barbara Carltand.

With big dicks! That cracked me up.

I did like the descriptions of technology though- making white leather, figuring out a better way to push the sinew through the holes- thereby inventing the needle-- but loading every bit of technological advancement onto the shoulders of one woman (who happens to be a sex kitten as well) was a bit much, even by Romance standards.

Back before the internet we didn't have a word for it, but now we do:
Mary Sue!!!

 

[FatDino]

You're making a common mistake. WE separate religion from other things--like science, for example. Most especially, thanks to the Judeo-Christian tradition, we separate sex from religion. But ancient religions did no such thing--which is WHY you have a phallus as a religious symbol.

In ancient times, there was no separation of religion from ANYTHING. The sun rose, and that was a religious event. Grain grew and was harvested, and that was a religious thing. Likewise, people engaged in prayer and had sex to seal the deal between themselves and the divine (Egyptian kings did this with their queens, for example, reinacting Osirus spreading his seed).

So something like a phallus, which might indeed have been a religious object, could also be used for sex. There is no reason to think that the two are exclusive. To the contrary, in ancient times they were far less likely to be exclusive. Ancient man did not have science. Nature, including human beings, and the divine were seen as completely intertwined and inseparable.

And that's why I asked the question. I'm not taking any side, sex as itself or sex as a religious practice; I'm just saying it's still too soon to know what that stone phallus was used for.

 

[cloudy]

With big dicks! That cracked me up.

I did like the descriptions of technology though- making white leather, figuring out a better way to push the sinew through the holes- thereby inventing the needle-- but loading every bit of technological advancement onto the shoulders of one woman (who happens to be a sex kitten as well) was a bit much, even by Romance standards.

Back before the internet we didn't have a word for it, but now we do:
Mary Sue!!!

And she tames the first horse, too! Something for the preteens!

 

[OhMissScarlett]

I again must disagree with you. I actually have some experience with hunter/getherer people. Yes, the tribe/clan membership is very important. However, something that I suspect that neither you or Liar know is that primitive hunter/gatherer tribes 'swap children.' Two hunter gatherer tribes will meet at some point and they will swap a girl child or two if they both have girls of an age to be separated from their mothers. The reason is, of course, to prevent inbreeding. They almost never swap boys, because boys become contributors fairly early in hunter/gatherer cultures and they are too valuable to swap.

I suspect that the child swap thing actually took place even among tribes that had no idea how babies were born, much less genetics. However, a hunter/gatherer tribe really can't get much beyond a couple of dozen individuals, since the lifestyle will not support a band of more than about that many. A band of a couple of dozen individuals gets inbred very quickly. Inbred children tend to be stupid. The stupid do not survive long in a hunter/gatherer culture.

You know, if they didn't really have a concept of genetics, they probably didn't understand inbreeding either. I think child swapping is probably a little too optimistic and likely they practiced infanticide. It's a well known fact that a lot of primitive cultures practiced this. Hell, the ancient Romans and Greeks even did it. I doubt any hunting tribe ever set a goal of having more mouths to feed, especially more girls.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And that's why I asked the question. I'm not taking any side, sex as itself or sex as a religious practice; I'm just saying it's still too soon to know what that stone phallus was used for.

Too late to know, more likely.

Still, what would you use it for? I know damn well what I would do with it, sometime after the big ceremony had ended.
People are people -- Even the chalice on the altar gets swigged from once in a while.

 

[FatDino]

Too late to know, more likely.

Still, what would you use it for? I know damn well what I would do with it, sometime after the big ceremony had ended.
People are people -- Even the chalice on the altar gets swigged from once in a while.

Maybe they put it in front of their house to mark the property?

 

[Vermilion]

With big dicks! That cracked me up.

I did like the descriptions of technology though- making white leather, figuring out a better way to push the sinew through the holes- thereby inventing the needle-- but loading every bit of technological advancement onto the shoulders of one woman (who happens to be a sex kitten as well) was a bit much, even by Romance standards.

Back before the internet we didn't have a word for it, but now we do:
Mary Sue!!!

It's still interesting to read about, even if it's rather unbelievable that one woman did it all.
Ignore the romance, if you like, but the lifestyle stuff is fascinating and raises points you may not question- such as men being involved in reproduction. It's not logical. Women don;t conceive every time they have sex and they don;t find out they're pregnant till way after they had sex, so why would anyone make the link between sex and babies?

<shrugs>
I like the books anyway.

Also - isn;t it the sixth one due out next or have I been an idiot and missed a book I've been waiting for for ages?
x
V

ETA: This is what the author herself says (in a Q & A session) as an explanation of the huge amounts of sex in the series:

Then Auel took questions. To me, the outstanding questions were about Sex and Durc.

Fairly late in the question period someone asked about all the sex. Jean's body language clearly said, 'I'd hoped that one wouldn't come up this time.' She said that sex was a natural part of life, and, since she was describing everything else, to leave it out would be a cop-out. She said it was important that the readers know that the woman's pleasure was more important than the man's. That to just have them go off into the bushes would allow readers to imagine sex in terms of male gratification. Finally, she talked about how difficult it was to find terms for female genitalia that were neither clinical, nor vulgar.

 

[R. Richard]

You know, if they didn't really have a concept of genetics, they probably didn't understand inbreeding either. I think child swapping is probably a little too optimistic and likely they practiced infanticide. It's a well known fact that a lot of primitive cultures practiced this. Hell, the ancient Romans and Greeks even did it. I doubt any hunting tribe ever set a goal of having more mouths to feed, especially more girls.

It's not necessarily a matter of more young mouths to feed. Often those who were abandoned/killed were the older members of the tribe who were now consuming more resources than they contributed. I watched a primitive tribe abandon a mamber who was very sick. The abandonment was not out of cruelty, but done simply because the tribe did not have the resources to stay and support the sick member. It was an exaggerated case of the French Foreign Legion mottoo, "March or die!"

A hunter gatherer tribe has to have children born or the tribe dies. It is not a matter of the young being a lot of trouble to raise and feed, they are the only future that the tribe has. However, if the life of a child puts the tribe at risk, the child will die on the spot.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Maybe they put it in front of their house to mark the property?

seven, eight inches long? A property marker ought to be... I dunno, bigger. More visible from the street...

 

[Stella_Omega]

TA: This is what the author herself says (in a Q & A session) as an explanation of the huge amounts of sex in the series:
Quote:
Then Auel took questions. To me, the outstanding questions were about Sex and Durc.

Fairly late in the question period someone asked about all the sex. Jean's body language clearly said, 'I'd hoped that one wouldn't come up this time.' She said that sex was a natural part of life, and, since she was describing everything else, to leave it out would be a cop-out. She said it was important that the readers know that the woman's pleasure was more important than the man's. That to just have them go off into the bushes would allow readers to imagine sex in terms of male gratification. Finally, she talked about how difficult it was to find terms for female genitalia that were neither clinical, nor vulgar.

*is diverted*

that is a really difficult question for any writer who comes near mainstream in our sex-negative society. Ann Rice simply disavowed her "Sleeping beauty" trilogy, and her other SM book "Out of Eden." But she and her husband were early members of the Janus Society, and were important in its development- and the Janus Society began the system of safety nets that most BDSM practitioners rely on so heavily today.

One of our writers here was just invited to read at a symposium. She says she really REALLY hopes the organisers understand that she writes graphic male/male sex...

 

[FatDino]

seven, eight inches long? A property marker ought to be... I dunno, bigger. More visible from the street...

It could be larger and they could have used more than one.

Hey, I'm just listing the possibilities.