This just in . . .

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't think it was 37,000 years old when the sculptor tried to capture it. Perhaps he/she couldn't see too well by the torchlight? Or maybe was in a hurry to finish so he/she could enjoy the real thing?


And so say all of us, so far. I wonder if the article got it wrong? Maybe they meant male genitals? It's certainly make more sense. I mean, a guy could even sculpt it himself just by looking down.

There is, after all, no reason to believe that all the artists were male. Some lusty Willendorf-ian might have been doing a little doodley daydreaming, yanno.

 

[Safe_Bet]

And so say all of us, so far. I wonder if the article got it wrong? Maybe they meant male genitals? It's certainly make more sense. I mean, a guy could even sculpt it himself just by looking down.

Nah. If if was some dude doing a prehistoric "self portrait" he would have used the biggest rock in the cave and carved a giant "swantzasaurus" so he could brag to his cave buddies about it. Somethings don't change in even 37,000 years.

 

[topace]

So are you saying that's what a 37,000 y.o., hairy vulva looked like???

Might I also add the word, "EEEEEEWWWWW!!!" to go along with that concept of yours? I don't mean to be ageist, but DAMN!

Were you there?

I doubt all ages for anything that are over 6500 years old. I hate to say this here, but I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution (species adapting to their environment) yes, but macro (species evolving into another) - hell no!

 

[CarlusMagnus]

Well, it's not written in stone, but I don't think we should take the impression for granite.

http://i.imgur.com/eCw2b.jpg

Gneiss post.