# Prehistoric Hotties



## zosimos (May 13, 2009)

So, the world's oldest work of figurative art has been recently been discovered, and my is she a hottie !! This supersized vixen dates back to 40,000 BC. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Schelklingen







Does any one else find it curious that all the most ancient artwork in the world inevitably represents SSBBWs? Judging by the loving accuracy of these statues, the artists appear to have been working from real models, not simply fantasy. Considering the conditions which must have prevailed in those archaic times, it's rather amazing that women were able to get that big. I mean, this was not only before restaurants, this was before agriculture! Fattening up these goddesses must have been a serious communal effort.

Looking at these ancient statues always gives me a spooky feeling, like perhaps as an FA, I was somehow reincarnated from those long and lovely eons of fat appreciation that took up the vast majority of human history. 























This last one of the dreaming goddess is my favorite. It's from Malta, where the fat goddess cult seems to have flourished longest. Curiously, I read somewhere that Malta currently has the highest rate of obesity in Europe! 






Anyone else have any pictures of prehistoric hotties to share, or any theories relating to this topic?


----------



## Emma (May 14, 2009)

It's amazing really. I can't even imagine how the women got so big back then but it's nice to know that people appretiated a big size even then. I wonder if this is some sort of proof that not all people have a fast metabolism. If there wasn't a lot of food around prehaps these lucky women were so unusual in their ability to gain weight that they were worshipped?


----------



## Hathor (May 14, 2009)

Where is picture #4 from? The woman seated with the wild cats on either side of her. 

Thanks so much for posting these images. It definitely makes me think about how the role of the fat woman has changed over centuries. If I find any other images like these, I'll certainly post them.

I did read that Malta has the highest % of obesity in Europe. http://www.mam.org.mt/newsdetail.asp?i=503&c=1


----------



## zosimos (May 14, 2009)

Hathor said:


> Where is picture #4 from? The woman seated with the wild cats on either side of her.
> 
> Thanks so much for posting these images. It definitely makes me think about how the role of the fat woman has changed over centuries. If I find any other images like these, I'll certainly post them.
> 
> I did read that Malta has the highest % of obesity in Europe. http://www.mam.org.mt/newsdetail.asp?i=503&c=1



I think she's from Çatalhöyük in Turkey, about 7,500 years ago. Supposedly, it was one of the first cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catal_huyuk

Apparently, the statue was found in a grain bin. Which figures. She reminds me of the goddess Artemis "mistress of beasts" from later times. Marija Gimbutas was a feminist archeologist who had a lot to say about prehistoric goddesses and their connections to animals, if you're into that...


----------



## JimBob (May 14, 2009)

CurvyEm said:


> It's amazing really. *I can't even imagine how the women got so big back then* but it's nice to know that people appretiated a big size even then. I wonder if this is some sort of proof that not all people have a fast metabolism. If there wasn't a lot of food around prehaps these lucky women were so unusual in their ability to gain weight that they were worshipped?



Ah, but that's the beauty: a large proportion of the wouldn't. the entire thing is very very early fantasy, using sculpture as an expression of the frustrated reproduction instinct just as, say, Star Trek is an artistic expression of the nomadic tribe instinct coupled with the survivalist conquering instinct. 

It's less of what Stone Agers had, more of what they wanted to have: large, contented women who could produce many children and not need to go hungry, especially in the winter. To say that it is representative of actual individuals would be similar to people n hundreds of years time thinking of most of us as members of Starfleet.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (May 14, 2009)

There are still a gigantic amount of things we assume about our past which are still theories, but are treated as fact by some. As we gather more artifacts such as these, our view will change, and we'll all find out that when you strip us of all of our creature comforts, the most important things are all survival-based.


----------



## MuleVariationsNYC (May 14, 2009)

Here is a NY Times article about the figurine and the discovery. Includes some info, and researcher's opinions that aren't in the wikipedia article.


----------



## undrcovrbrothr (May 14, 2009)

Fertility is the key word, of course... which means healthy (i.e. larger) and for children. There wasn't really that much to do for fun back then... someone had to say it, right?


----------



## Adamantoise (May 14, 2009)

zosimos said:


> So, the world's oldest work of figurative art has been recently been discovered, and my is she a hottie !! This supersized vixen dates back to 40,000 BC.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Schelklingen
> 
> ...



I adore these sculptures-truly magnificent works of art... :happy:


----------



## Ned Sonntag (May 14, 2009)

William LORD OF THE FLIES Golding wrote a book THE INHERITORS from the POV of a Neanderthal fellow who spies on a Cro-Magnon camp and is blown away that the more-advanced cavemen have a fat 'queen'!:bow: 
That was my:blush: inspiration for this... A cover for print-DIMz back in the Paleolithic era of Size Acceptance!!


----------



## Blockierer (May 14, 2009)

The sexiest of all these sculptures is the Venus of Willendorf.


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (May 14, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> William LORD OF THE FLIES Golding wrote a book THE INHERITORS from the POV of a Neanderthal fellow who spies on a Cro-Magnon camp and is blown away that the more-advanced cavemen have a fat 'queen'!:bow:
> That was my:blush: inspiration for this... A cover for print-DIMz back in the Paleolithic era of Size Acceptance!!



Ned, that picture bears an astonishing resemblance to Mrs Ho Ho, my very own Valkyrie, and me - except for the position of the spear. She is usually prodding me in the tail end with it to get some work out of me.
*Hoyo-to-ho! Hoyo-to-ho! Hoyo-to-Ho Ho Tai!*


----------



## Skaster (May 14, 2009)

LOL - Schelklingen is only about 60 miles from where I live, so now I know where my FA-genes come from!


----------



## olwen (May 14, 2009)

JimBob said:


> Ah, but that's the beauty: a large proportion of the wouldn't. the entire thing is very very early fantasy, using sculpture as an expression of the frustrated reproduction instinct just as, say, Star Trek is an artistic expression of the nomadic tribe instinct coupled with the survivalist conquering instinct.
> 
> It's less of what Stone Agers had, more of what they wanted to have: large, contented women who could produce many children and not need to go hungry, especially in the winter. To say that it is representative of actual individuals would be similar to people n hundreds of years time thinking of most of us as members of Starfleet.



How about this, in order to carve the figurine, someone had to have the time. 
Anyone who lives on a farm knows how much time goes into maintaining it. Even if you have to have to go out and forage for food, you still have to bring it back, cook it, preserve it, store it, watch the kids, make things you need. Surely everyone contributed to the survival of the clan. The clan/village would have to have enough members for people to be able to specialize activities, which means they had to prosper. It's quite possible some of them were in fact fat. In some african cultures, the fat ones are the most respected and loved because people give them food....Yes, in some of the pictures the genitals are exaggerated, but I tell you what, I know what my body looks like and it's pretty close to some of those figures. I find it hard to believe someone's imagination could just account for all the realistic depictions. I think there were fat people in those days.


----------



## Duniwin (May 14, 2009)

I saw this in the paper today, and was excited when I got home to see there was already a thread about it.

I read this article online, which describes the figure as a "grotesquely exaggerated sculpture of a female body." I disagree with the "grotesque" part since I see little that is fantastical or impossible aside from the genitalia, plus the word grotesque has very negative connotations.

PS - I love the art Ned, and now I'm hunting to read _The Inheritors_!


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 14, 2009)

olwen said:


> I think there were fat people in those days.



"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
-- Genesis 6.4

So maybe you're right.


----------



## stan_der_man (May 14, 2009)

olwen said:


> ...
> I find it hard to believe someone's imagination could just account for all the realistic depictions. I think there were fat people in those days.



I agree with you Olwen. Hard as life may have been back in those days, having a sculpture degree myself, I would bet these figures were modeled after real people that the artist had seen within their lifetime. Perhaps only one woman in every few generations grew this large, but it is entirely possible. I would even go so far as to say that seeing such a large woman made a lasting impression (presumably positive...) on the sculptor, certainly enough of an impression to make the time and effort to create such a sculpture.

This figurine had to be modeled after a real person...


----------



## knottedsouls (May 15, 2009)

Blockierer said:


> The sexiest of all these sculptures is the Venus of Willendorf.



This is my favorite goddess sculpture!


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 15, 2009)

The "Venus" figures are fertility Goddesses. 

In my opinion, it's unlikely the figurines were based on any one actual person. The figurines are depicted as full figured and _pregnant_ and most likely the features of pregnancy (full breasts and belly) were exaggerated to enhance the magical properties of health and fertility the cultures believed the figurines had. 

They are a representation of what those cultures saw as an idealized symbol of fertility and or Mother Goddess type deity.


----------



## JimBob (May 15, 2009)

Ned Sonntag said:


> William LORD OF THE FLIES Golding wrote a book THE INHERITORS from the POV of a Neanderthal fellow who spies on a Cro-Magnon camp and is blown away that the more-advanced cavemen have a fat 'queen'!:bow:
> That was my:blush: inspiration for this... A cover for print-DIMz back in the Paleolithic era of Size Acceptance!!



If you're going for 'theme' pictures, you should totally consider doing an illustration of this story: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1153034#post1153034

It's a really great narrative.


----------



## adam (May 15, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> I agree with you Olwen. Hard as life may have been back in those days, having a sculpture degree myself, I would bet these figures were modeled after real people that the artist had seen within their lifetime. Perhaps only one woman in every few generations grew this large, but it is entirely possible. I would even go so far as to say that seeing such a large woman made a lasting impression (presumably positive...) on the sculptor, certainly enough of an impression to make the time and effort to create such a sculpture.
> 
> This figurine had to be modeled after a real person...



I would of made her chair/throne wider.

I have written a few story outlines inspired by images like these figures over the years, but never have finished any for reasons of laziness on my part. They always end up needing to be very long and complex, and I can't pull them out. I do love that these things are real though. Makes perfect sense to me that when possible women would be fed to grow fat, since they were the providers to the children that keeps the bloodline going, and it was probably of high status to have a fat woman either as a mate and or as a queen or whatever.


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (May 15, 2009)

olwen said:


> How about this, in order to carve the figurine, someone had to have the time.
> Anyone who lives on a farm knows how much time goes into maintaining it. Even if you have to have to go out and forage for food, you still have to bring it back, cook it, preserve it, store it, watch the kids, make things you need. Surely everyone contributed to the survival of the clan. The clan/village would have to have enough members for people to be able to specialize activities, which means they had to prosper. It's quite possible some of them were in fact fat. In some african cultures, the fat ones are the most respected and loved because people give them food....Yes, in some of the pictures the genitals are exaggerated, but I tell you what, I know what my body looks like and it's pretty close to some of those figures. I find it hard to believe someone's imagination could just account for all the realistic depictions. I think there were fat people in those days.



"Even if you have to have to go out and forage for food, you still have to bring it back, cook it, preserve it, store it..."

Olwen - good points, all. I would add just this: as a method of food preservation, fat predates freezing, canning, pickling, lutefisk - even sun-drying fish and meat on racks. Perhaps the racial memory is stronger in FAs, BBWs, et c.

I am a bit surprised that more species in winter climes didn't develop some form of hibernation. Here in Minnesota, I sure get the urge on cold winter days when it feels so good to stay under the comforter with your snuggle partner. Was it simply competition that drove us into the Cold to make our living?


----------



## Geektastic1 (May 15, 2009)

Many people assume life was always nasty, brutish, and short in prehistoric times, and that food was always scarce, but I'm sure that wasn't the case. Undoubtedly, there were times of famine, but I'm sure most of the time, people got enough to eat. Traditional hunter/gatherer people are pretty skilled at getting food, even in the hardest conditions. 

Of course, I think that most people here know that many people are genetically "skilled" at producing fat and keeping it on, no matter how much we eat or don't eat. That's probably how most of us fat people's ancestors survived famines. A few hard winters with scarcity to "prime" the body's tendency to store fat, a few pregnancies, as well as a few years of surplus and plenty--well, I'd expect a *lot* of fat Ice Age women, actually. Or at least chubby ones.

There have always been fat people--the idea that fat people only exist in modern times or among affluent classes is a myth.


----------



## elle camino (May 15, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> The "Venus" figures are fertility Goddesses.


we don't _know_ that, though. could be that, could be portraiture, could be prehistoric hustler magazine, could be anything. 
these things are basically little ink blots for us to either appreciate or tear our hair out trying to understand, and as i'm currently being steeped in this sort of thing right now - the scholarly community has for the most part chosen the latter, and argued amongst themselves for decades. and the conclusion is always the same: we don't know. 

best just to go with what we absolutely do: they're insanely old, they're fat, and they're beautiful. 
awesome.


----------



## Tad (May 15, 2009)

Rather than quoting all of Geektastic's quote, I'll just give a hearty "I agree!"

I know I've read some estimates of hunter/gatherer lifestyle which basically said that in rich land they probably spent a lot LESS of their time than farmers on obtaining food. However they generally have to keep moving around so can't usually accumulate much wealth, either in goods or in stored food. The lack of stored food makes them more vulnerable to bad times, or course. The lack of material wealth limits the amount of comforts you could keep.

To my mind the biggest issue with the idea that the sculpure was directly modelled on someone is that I wonder if someone that size would be up to the movement between camps needed to stay near plentiful food? (Could a band provide enough food to make someone fat? Surely. Could they provide a lifestyle that makes being that fat practical? I'm not sure).

I'm not sure if they had the population density to maintain anything like a religious site where there were permanent inhabitants who would have perhaps had more opportunity to become that fat?

Anyway, it is a shame that it was lost on the cave floor for whatever reason, I'm sure that was _someone_'s prized possesion!


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 15, 2009)

elle camino said:


> we don't _know_ that, though. could be that, could be portraiture, could be prehistoric hustler magazine, could be anything.



I know it might be an unpopular thing to say and many people here would like to believe these are somehow prehistoric portraits of super sized/ultra sized women. But there is no way this is based on a actual person.






They're fertility idols. Just like the male fertility figures that have been found with exaggerated male genetalia. No chance men ever had five foot long penises and there's no chance there were fantasy sized pregnant women in hunter gatherer cultures.


----------



## Geektastic1 (May 15, 2009)

edx said:


> To my mind the biggest issue with the idea that the sculpure was directly modelled on someone is that I wonder if someone that size would be up to the movement between camps needed to stay near plentiful food? (Could a band provide enough food to make someone fat? Surely. Could they provide a lifestyle that makes being that fat practical? I'm not sure).



In a tribe or group of people, there are usually also elderly people, children, pregnant women, and people with infirmities, and they would also have to move to different camps. I think a slower, fatter person (who is also possibly one of the pregnant women) would probably be able to keep up fine. 

Just personally speaking, I'm roughly about the same size/shape as the Venus of Willendorf, and I get around pretty good. I ride my bike all over town and haul a lot of groceries on it. I'm not an extremely fast walker, but if I had to travel a long distance on foot, I could do it. Just 5 miles each day, and I could be 50 miles away in 10 days.


----------



## Tad (May 15, 2009)

OK, good points about travel!


----------



## Geektastic1 (May 15, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I know it might be an unpopular thing to say and many people here would like to believe these are somehow prehistoric portraits of super sized/ultra sized women. But there is no way this is based on a actual person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have no doubt that representations like these are partially idealized, with some body parts exaggerated and emphasized for whatever reason (religious, erotic, or aesthetic purposes--who knows, and we really *don't* know), but I'm convinced they are based on actual fat women, quite possibly pregnant ones. There is too much realistic detail in these carvings. 

To me, this woman doesn't really look super or ultra or fantasy-sized--some of the details are just exaggerated (thrust-out gigantic breasts, enormous vulva, etc).


----------



## elle camino (May 15, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> They're fertility idols.


haha i know i'm engaging in the same kind of debate i mentioned ealrier, but seriously: you don't know that. you can assume it, you can say so, and you'd be in league with the 30% of art historians/anthropologists who are also convinced that's the case. but if you really look into what we _know_ about venus of willendorf, etc etc on down the line: it amounts to formal analysis, which tells us zero about the actual purpose of the object. she's got a bumpy head! people must have braided their hair back then! or maybe it's replicating basket weaving! we definitely wove baskets. she's small, so she was portable! she must have been made by a member of some nomadic tribe! or maybe she was just a personal memento of a loved one, seated on some prehistoric mantle for generations. etc etc etc. 
we just. don't. know.
it's not like unearthing a bowl or a sword or whatever - these objects are completely open to our own interpretations. hence, little ink blots. 

which is why i prefer to go the 'prehistoric hustler' route. makes me happy to think of some neolithic duder out herding his sheep, bored and carving the likeness of his dream fatty. and that's as supported by the evidence as any other theory.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 15, 2009)

Geektastic1 said:


> some of the details are just exaggerated (thrust-out gigantic breasts, enormous vulva, etc).



Yes, they are exaggerated. Meaning not based on an actual person. Like Ned's cave girl, they are idealized fantasy representations. 

Using Ned's cave girl, again, for an example (and it is a wonderful piece of art) it's not realistic. There were no tall, fair skinned, super sized, shaved legged, cavewoman warriors. It's a wonderful drawing, but it's a total idealized fantasy. 

People then were much shorter then we are now. Life was harsh, lifespans were very short, food was often scarce and they had to deal with predators and competing tribes for resources.

Going back to this. 



> (thrust-out gigantic breasts, enormous vulva, etc)








Same is Ned's drawing, that sculpture is a fantasy. It's not a real woman. She could give birth to a Volkswagen.


----------



## Risible (May 15, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I know it might be an unpopular thing to say and many people here would like to believe these are somehow prehistoric portraits of super sized/ultra sized women. But there is no way this is based on a actual person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to disagree, Jack. It appears to me that she is holding up her belly, exposing her mons and lifting up her breasts. Exaggerated, yes, and abstract to a large degree, but I recognized and identified with her figure. My feet look better, though.


----------



## Fascinita (May 15, 2009)

Risible said:


> I have to disagree, Jack. It appears to me that she is *holding up her belly, exposing her mons* and lifting up her breasts. Exaggerated, yes, and abstract to a large degree, but I recognized and identified with her figure. My feet look better, though.



I think this is what she's doing, too. (So-called) ritual obscenity (exposure of genitals) has been associated with "secret" cults of female fertility and fertility management (birth control)--for instance, the Thesmophoria in Greece (see Aristophanes's comedy _Thesmophoriazusae_.) 

What few written accounts exist of these cults seem to provide evidence that links female labor (work) and female ritual to the dawn of agriculture. The cult of Demeter--whose myth accounts for agrarian cycles of productivity in terms of female fertility--for example, is older (possibly much older) than Attic Greek culture, which credits men with harnessing the secrets of agriculture handed down to people by the goddess. 

These figurines with exposed or exaggerated genitalia bear some resemblance to Baubo figurines and Sheela na Gig figurines and carvings found all over pre-Christian Europe. Baubo plays a central role in the story of Demeter mourning her lost daughter, Persephone--she _exposes_ her genitals to make the goddess laugh and forget her pain.

We may not be able to pin-point the ideology represented in the figurines, but they clearly are rich with meaning and absolutely mesmerizing to look at.

ETA: Illustrations

This is a copy of a figurine from Malta, in the "Baubo" style (although preceding the Baubo of Greek cultures by millennia):

View attachment 63750


This is a later Baubo, from Greece proper:






A Sheela na Gig, from Avebury:


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 15, 2009)

elle camino said:


> which is why i prefer to go the 'prehistoric hustler' route. makes me happy to think of some neolithic duder out herding his sheep, bored and carving the likeness of his dream fatty. and that's as supported by the evidence as any other theory.



I think you're right on the money about the porn aspect of these figures. Having taught for years, first in high school and then in college -- and thus having had to use the men's room at several educational institutions -- I have seen a great deal of amateur pornography in my time. And these prehistoric belles share some important features with the temptresses of the bathroom walls. First, as has been noted, is the exaggeration of the genitals and breasts. Second is the de-emphasis of the head, face, hands and feet. The OP's photo shows an exaggeratedly female figure, but one with a bump instead of a head; the Willendorf Venus has an elaborate coiffure, but no face. As you say, the artist is carving his dream fatty -- and leaving out the parts that don't interest him.


----------



## Fascinita (May 15, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> As you say, the artist is carving _his_ dream fatty -- and leaving out the parts that don't interest him.



The artist is assumed to be male, then?


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (May 15, 2009)

Risible said:


> I have to disagree, Jack. It appears to me that she is holding up her belly, exposing her mons and lifting up her breasts. Exaggerated, yes, and abstract to a large degree, but I recognized and identified with her figure. My feet look better, though.



So does your head. And I hope you're laffing it off this very minute.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 15, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> As you say, the artist is carving his dream fatty -- and leaving out the parts that don't interest him.



I think you are maybe taking the cultural context of the sculptures out of the equation. 

Woman, in those cultures, were not just for basket weaving. They were also the healers and wise people of the tribes. So,* women *more than likely would have sculpted those while the men were off hunting. Plus, let's not forget, time was very precious back then and a great deal of time and effort would have gone into those stone "Venus" figures. So, the figures would have had to a great deal more significance and importance to the tribe, like fertility, health and maybe even protection of a patron Goddess, than just caveman porn.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (May 15, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> The artist is assumed to be male, then?



In the scenario you proposed, the artist was male. And I think you're probably right about that. Though I have not personally investigated the graffiti in ladies' rooms, my wife and various female friends have assured me that pornographic sketches are not usual there.



Jack Skellington said:


> Plus, let's not forget, time was very precious back then and a great deal of time and effort would have gone into those stone "Venus" figures.
> 
> If prehistoric hunter-gatherers were anything like the remaining contemporary ones, they had LOTS of time on their hands! The accounts I've read by anthropologists laid stress on how little time need be spent preparing to hunt (or gather) in comparison with labor-intensive agriculture. Chipping a flint arrowhead only takes a few minutes if you know what you're doing. Ditto for repairing nets. And you'd have considerable time in the evening, sitting around the fire, listening to the old men brag about how much bigger the mammoths were when they were young. Why not pick up a piece of bone and sculpt somebody pretty? You wouldn't have to do it all in one sitting, either.
> 
> So, the figures would have had to a great deal more significance and importance to the tribe, like fertility, health and maybe even protection of a patron Goddess, than just caveman porn.



I'm not sure I'll go along with that 'so': there is no more reason to assume this than to deny it. On the other hand, I'll grant the possibility that these sculptures had significance beyond the prurient if you'll concede that they may have functioned as a prehistoric Paysite Board in addition to whatever socio-politico-religious ends they served.


----------



## Fascinita (May 15, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> In the scenario you proposed, the artist was male.



No.  http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1175956&postcount=33

Different lady, different face.


----------



## Fascinita (May 15, 2009)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> I'm not sure I'll go along with that 'so': there is no more reason to assume this than to deny it.



There actually is some convincing evidence. At least I think so.

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1175956&postcount=33


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 20, 2009)

It's interesting that we keep unearthing these.

I'm not really biased though. I basically agree with Elle in that it could be a goddess, prehistoric paysite  lol, and/or so on.

It says to me that maybe there were certain groups that did admire that figure, but just like today, it varies. There's no law of attraction or what's "The norm" either way, which is why I think calling Fat Admiration (Exclusive or non), fetishtic without acknowledging it's opposite is bull. We've found our thin images and possibly these images of fat women to continue a line of figures that could mean lots of stuff to lots of cultures really.

My own talking point is kinda like what Jack said: Even in our culture today we focus on ideals that we may not necessarily have (Or we're given the notion that we can't get it or it's really hard work). This could be a focus on that very same thing: Whether it's realistic or not. I don't think back then a certain ideal of beauty was pushed, however. Today we're given a overwhelming notion that it takes work to achieve xyz figure to impress xyz. I am not going to go out on a limb and say that the people of those times were "Dumb," but would they really think about the former? :Bow:


----------



## fatcharlie (May 20, 2009)

I was on holliday on Malta some years ago.
It´s a pretty small island but with lot of interesting history.

In Valletta there is a great historicalmuseum and there was some large rooms with just this BBW and SSBBW figurines
I took alot of photos together with my "own" BBW, Karin:blush:, but you see them just as well on this links

http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/malta_mega_temples/

:bow:


----------



## KatsPyjamas (May 22, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I think this is what she's doing, too. (So-called) ritual obscenity (exposure of genitals) has been associated with "secret" cults of female fertility and fertility management (birth control)--for instance, the Thesmophoria in Greece (see Aristophanes's comedy _Thesmophoriazusae_.)
> 
> What few written accounts exist of these cults seem to provide evidence that links female labor (work) and female ritual to the dawn of agriculture. The cult of Demeter--whose myth accounts for agrarian cycles of productivity in terms of female fertility--for example, is older (possibly much older) than Attic Greek culture, which credits men with harnessing the secrets of agriculture handed down to people by the goddess.
> 
> ...



Some very interesting points about art, humans and history have been made in this thread. This is something I know little about but find psychologically interesting, thanks Fascinita!

I'd also like to chime in with elle camino's comment that these sculptures being fertility icons is just one theory. Just because it's probably the most misguided, not because they could never be, but because people assume it to be the truth without realising that they can't really proove WHAT it is. Some theories suggest that statues like the Willendorf Venus were carved by women, and that their proportions were from their own perspective. *Looks down* seems plausible.


----------



## superodalisque (May 26, 2009)

i just wanted to add my 2 cents. a culture does not have to have large amounts of free time to create art. the cave paintings of animals prove that. art is a part of culture in the poorest most barren and poverty stricken places because no matter what human beings still have souls that have a need to express themselves. besides all of that a lot of these images were not huge. many found were very small. a lot of them could fit in your hand. i could well image some could have been completed during a particularly rainy day in the cave. and as far as the images being porn... i don't think that was the case. among cultures like these sex is not the taboo it is in our culture . its completely natural. it was not the big freaked out thing we tend to make it now. there is a liking for it and a reverence for sex but i think they would probably think our porn was weird.


----------



## LillyBBBW (May 29, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I know it might be an unpopular thing to say and many people here would like to believe these are somehow prehistoric portraits of super sized/ultra sized women. But there is no way this is based on a actual person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jack you are still a prude and the proof is here. Congratulations!  Looks like what we need around here is a SSBBW anatomy class. That is clearly a crude miniature sculpture of a supersized woman reclining on an incline with legs spread, arms wrapped around her busom, pullng back her belly and revealing a swelled and trembling mons to her lover. I wouldn't put my hands on that thing if I were you. I can assure you it is saturated with 40,000 year old liquid DNA. lol

I swear. This thread is proof that size acceptance is a doomed concept when ideas of this nature can occure HERE of all places. People just can't be talked down. A prehistoric man's statement survives the harsh conditions of 40,000 years only to be felled by human arrogance. He carvs a diagram for goodness' sake and people are still scratching their heads looking around for a McDonald's. It's truly baffling.


----------



## Jack Skellington (May 29, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Jack you are still a prude and the proof is here.



You say it like it's a bad thing.


----------



## queencecilia (Jun 4, 2009)

It actually makes perfect sense to me that very large women were idealized back in prehistoric times.

-A woman who is 50 lbs overweight is more likely to be fertile than a woman who is 50 lbs underweight

-A woman who is fat likely has a skilled male partner that hunts well and takes care of her

-A woman who is fat can survive a winter or a famine easier than a slim one

-A fat woman or any fat person really, suggests a time where food is plentiful

-A woman with a large stomach may emulate a pregnant woman, even if it's just body fat that she's carrying. This makes it very likely that a fat woman is revered as a fertility idol.

All those point being made, I still think it was very unlikely that there were many fat people back in prehistoric times. When there was a fat woman, I'm sure that they rarely got to be SSBBW size as we define it. If they did, they probably didn't last very long, as a woman that large can't run from a predator, or travel with group on foot for months at a time, and they may have health problems. Not saying it's a definite, because there are plenty of SSBBW's who lead healthy lives, but it was much harder back then. 

So if they did get very fat, they didn't stay that way for long. That didn't stop pre-historic men from idealizing though.


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 4, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I swear. This thread is proof that size acceptance is a doomed concept when ideas of this nature can occure HERE of all places. People just can't be talked down. A *prehistoric man's statement survives the harsh conditions of 40,000 years* only to be felled by human arrogance. He carvs a diagram for goodness' sake and people are still scratching their heads looking around for a McDonald's. It's truly baffling.



Lilly, I don't get why this artist would have to have been a man. It's like the possibility that this statuette is inspired by anything other than a male appreciation for female beauty is inadmissible? Only male aesthetic sensibilities and male hands could have produced this?

It's just one possibility.

We can't impose gender dynamics that are familiar to us on our reading of these cultural artifacts. Context is everything. For just one theory that provides a plausible take on the "meaning" of this and other statuettes like it, please see my previous posts here. There is some evidence that links these statuettes to a mythology of fertility and agriculture, subsistence, and women's labor. That's a world away from "guy carves pin-up statue of fattie" but it doesn't take away from a very fat-positive interpretation.


----------



## ToniTails (Jun 4, 2009)

either way, these are simple, beautiful works of art- -all the more precious for the meaning carved into them- whatever that meaning may be- like all good works of art, we can project a reasoning of our own along with that that the artist intended




Fascinita said:


> Lilly, I don't get why this artist would have to have been a man. It's like the possibility that this statuette is inspired by anything other than a male appreciation for female beauty is inadmissible? Only male aesthetic sensibilities and male hands could have produced this?
> 
> It's just one possibility.
> 
> We can't impose gender dynamics that are familiar to us on our reading of these cultural artifacts. Context is everything. For just one theory that provides a plausible take on the "meaning" of this and other statuettes like it, please see my previous posts here. There is some evidence that links these statuettes to a mythology of fertility and agriculture, subsistence, and women's labor. That's a world away from "guy carves pin-up statue of fattie" but it doesn't take away from a very fat-positive interpretation.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Lilly, I don't get why this artist would have to have been a man. It's like the possibility that this statuette is inspired by anything other than a male appreciation for female beauty is inadmissible? Only male aesthetic sensibilities and male hands could have produced this?
> 
> It's just one possibility.
> 
> We can't impose gender dynamics that are familiar to us on our reading of these cultural artifacts. Context is everything. For just one theory that provides a plausible take on the "meaning" of this and other statuettes like it, please see my previous posts here. There is some evidence that links these statuettes to a mythology of fertility and agriculture, subsistence, and women's labor. That's a world away from "guy carves pin-up statue of fattie" but it doesn't take away from a very fat-positive interpretation.



Fascinita I've rarely if ever spoken in terms of gender before in any of my ramblings and have gotten a lot of flack for it from grammar freaks who don't like my use of the word 'their' in place of his or her. They've spent the major part of 4 years being constantly offended by me with no apology fourthcoming. I decided to change up this ONE time and here you come.  If I apologize to you it wouldnt be fair, BUT I do want to say that I agree. :kiss2:


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 5, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Fascinita I've rarely if ever spoken in terms of gender before in any of my ramblings and have gotten a lot of flack for it from grammar freaks who don't like my use of the word 'their' in place of his or her. They've spent the major part of 4 years being constantly offended by me with no apology fourthcoming. I decided to change up this ONE time and here you come.  If I apologize to you it wouldnt be fair, BUT I do want to say that I agree. :kiss2:



You rock my world, Lilly. :wubu:

I sure didn't mean to give you flack, nor was calling for an apology! Can we say that I was trying to have an impassioned conversation with you about how to interpret these things? That would allow me to feel positive about it. Though your good-natured response already puts it in a positive light... Thanks.


----------



## joswitch (Jun 7, 2009)

JimBob said:


> Ah, but that's the beauty: a large proportion of the wouldn't. the entire thing is very very early fantasy, using sculpture as an expression of the frustrated reproduction instinct just as, say, Star Trek is an artistic expression of the nomadic tribe instinct coupled with the survivalist conquering instinct.
> 
> It's less of what Stone Agers had, more of what they wanted to have: large, contented women who could produce many children and not need to go hungry, especially in the winter. To say that it is representative of actual individuals would be similar to people n hundreds of years time thinking of most of us as members of Starfleet.



That's an unfounded assumption. And in fact there is evidence against your assertion - while it is very difficult to glean evidence of the presence or absence of adipose tissue (fat) in the dead, especially the long dead, one exception is in those mummified either by certain natural processes or by human agency... The recently discovered mummy of queen/king/pharoah Hapshepsut - one of the most powerful women of the ancient world (yes, not Stone Age, I know) is a fat woman... see National Geographic....


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 8, 2009)

There are certain distinctions about the body position of that art that make it difficult for me to believe that this is random. From the way the back fat spreads out against a flat surface, the boobs are tiered and falling upward towards the woman's face, the spread of flesh on her backside against a flat surface, the flatness at the top of the thighs indicating hindered growth there from the presence of a hanging belly when upright, the state of the mons, a belly button to one side of the body where the belly leans heaviest - the details in this art are much too specific and realistic to be solely fantasy. These characteristics indicate a familiarity with the subject far beyond just, "I wanna see teh fat!" This is a woman the artist knew and knew well enough to capture the idiosyncrasies of her fat body that a casual person would rarely make note of. The only thing more compelling than this rendition would be an actual photograph taken of the woman which I'm sure would still garner criticism. This removes all doubt in my mind though that fat people did exist in prehistoric times. Chances are they survived the same way everybody else did. Stay out of predator's lairs. If one comes to yours, smash his head with a rock or run him through with a spear. Survival depends mostly on intelligence and not so much an ability to chew raw meat and kick a door in like Charles Bronson.


----------



## joswitch (Jun 8, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> There are certain distinctions about the body position of that art that make it difficult for me to believe that this is random. From the way the back fat spreads out against a flat surface, the boobs are tiered and falling upward towards the woman's face, the spread of flesh on her backside against a flat surface, the flatness at the top of the thighs indicating hindered growth there from the presence of a hanging belly when upright, the state of the mons, a belly button to one side of the body where the belly leans heaviest - the details in this art are much too specific and realistic to be solely fantasy. These characteristics indicate a familiarity with the subject far beyond just, "I wanna see teh fat!" This is a woman the artist knew and knew well enough to capture the idiosyncrasies of her fat body that a casual person would rarely make note of. The only thing more compelling than this rendition would be an actual photograph taken of the woman which I'm sure would still garner criticism. This removes all doubt in my mind though that fat people did exist in prehistoric times. Chances are they survived the same way everybody else did. Stay out of predator's lairs. If one comes to yours, smash his head with a rock or run him through with a spear. Survival depends mostly on intelligence and not so much an ability to chew raw meat and kick a door in like Charles Bronson.



More support for Lilly's assertion of the actual existence of BBWs in hunter gatherer societies - there are societies who have maintained a stone age tech.-based hunter/gatherer lifestyle into historical time - the San of South Africa (also referred to as "Bushmen" or "Pygmies" they are closely related to the the Khoi pastoral/herder people who were also referred to patronisingly by europeans at the time as "Hottentots")... The San especially the San women are famous for having steatopygia or as we like to call it - bootay! XD ...
Photo proof of this dating back to the 19th century... 






and from
http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Prehistoric_Art/Grimaldi.htm





By the way if we take away the patronising "specimen" style label from underneath this photo - is this not a great picture? I love how she's looking at the camera! 

More from (ok a slightly odd page)
http://barclay1720.tripod.com/hist/paleo/buttocks.htm
and here's Hatshepsut popping up again! being visited by the steatopygious then Queen of Punt, in historical times
"If we look back to the fairly recent history (though some 3500 years ago), we can take a look at the famous queen of Punt. She is depicted on the walls of the mortuary temple of Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut, who reigned in the fifteenth century BC. " 

this page here (which I have only skim read) seems to argue that steatopygia was also a present feature of the "middle Jomon" hunter gatherer people of what is now Japan about 5,000 years ago

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/116/1/116_87/_html

In terms of evolution the ability to store fat in times of plenty (to draw on in lean times) would in fact be more strongly selected for the more unreliable the food supply was! Cos if you weren't a "storer" the chances of you living through to reproduce = slim! (forgive pun plskthx)

This is the basis for my fond argument that: 
Fat people are, in fact, genetic heroes without whom the human race wouldn't still exist - and therefore fat folks should be universally celebrated! :bow:


----------



## ToniTails (Jun 8, 2009)

this is what strikes me as odd when someone says it was a fantasy--- the bodies are so specifically realistic- 


LillyBBBW said:


> There are certain distinctions about the body position of that art that make it difficult for me to believe that this is random. From the way the back fat spreads out against a flat surface, the boobs are tiered and falling upward towards the woman's face, the spread of flesh on her backside against a flat surface, the flatness at the top of the thighs indicating hindered growth there from the presence of a hanging belly when upright, the state of the mons, a belly button to one side of the body where the belly leans heaviest - the details in this art are much too specific and realistic to be solely fantasy. These characteristics indicate a familiarity with the subject far beyond just, "I wanna see teh fat!" This is a woman the artist knew and knew well enough to capture the idiosyncrasies of her fat body that a casual person would rarely make note of. The only thing more compelling than this rendition would be an actual photograph taken of the woman which I'm sure would still garner criticism. This removes all doubt in my mind though that fat people did exist in prehistoric times. Chances are they survived the same way everybody else did. Stay out of predator's lairs. If one comes to yours, smash his head with a rock or run him through with a spear. Survival depends mostly on intelligence and not so much an ability to chew raw meat and kick a door in like Charles Bronson.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 8, 2009)

00 toni lynn 00 said:


> this is what strikes me as odd when someone says it was a fantasy--- the bodies are so specifically realistic-



Exactly toni lynn. To be honest, what strikes me most about this particular sculpture is the mons. I'm not an expert. I only know myself and maybe conversed with a few other women. From that little bit of knowledge I'm lead to believe that most women's mons lips don't hang slack like that naturally. Mostly it is plump and closed. Some women though; their lips go slack and will part exposing the clit after being sexually stimulated vigorously within a short period of time. I look at this sculpture and see a woman that the artist may have had sex with multiple times already but there she is beckoning for her lover to come for another go round. I'm reluctant to speak in absolutes about that part because I just don't know enough about the super sized body on that level to be secure. But that's what I think of when I see this sculpture. It looks to me like the knowledge that this woman was unable to get enough of her lover was incredibly erotic to the artist and this pose totally captures that mood to my eye.


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 10, 2009)

joswitch said:


> By the way if we take away the patronising "specimen" style label from underneath this photo - is this not a great picture? I love how she's looking at the camera!



Yes, she's a terrific flirt and a wonderful sport, old boy.



I love how the popular imagination accommodates any and every practice, so long as it yields an ounce of pleasure for consumption. Well, truth be told, I don't really love it.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 11, 2009)

00 toni lynn 00 said:


> this is what strikes me as odd when someone says it was a fantasy--- the bodies are so specifically realistic-



I was unaware women had labias down to their knees. I guess that means the male fertility idols with the 4 foot long penises are realistic as well. Good to know. 

I feel some people seem like they are so intent on projecting their own feelings and emotions onto these sculptures they are maybe over looking the history and cultural context of them. 

I disagree with the the ideas the that since they are figurines of women they must have been sculpted by a man for a man's pleasure. I disagree that a sculpture of a women automatically equals porn because women never had any greater cultural importance or significance. 

And, I will say it again, they are idealized. They also not just heavy but likely _pregnant _as well. 

You can trace the fertility Goddesses back through the ages through many different ancient cultures all over the world. Patron Goddesses of woman and fertility like Isis, Demeter, Inanna and Astarte. Lilith/Belil-ili was even originally a protector of women that helped them in childbirth and nursed infants before the later faiths remade her into a demoness. 

These figurines are just as likely, if not more so, been sculpted by women for women. Sculptures of patron Goddess that were believed to have protected woman and or helped them during childbirth. Women often had greater roles and importance than just sex objects and basket weavers in those cultures. They were the healers, wise women and priestesses.


----------



## joswitch (Jun 11, 2009)

> Originally Posted by joswitch
> By the way if we take away the patronising "specimen" style label from underneath this photo - is this not a great picture? I love how she's looking at the camera!





Fascinita said:


> Yes, she's a terrific flirt and a wonderful sport, old boy.
> 
> 
> 
> I love how the popular imagination accommodates any and every practice, so long as it yields an ounce of pleasure for consumption. Well, truth be told, I don't really love it.



Hmmm... 
seems I left room for your interpretation... I should've been more specific.... 

What I love about the woman's expression in that picture is that it conveys (to me at least) a bold confidence in herself and her body - as though she's thinking "of course you want to take a picture of me, who wouldn't!?" - she's got "attitude!" and that is a happy thing to see... in a "you go girl!" way rather than a "phwoarrrr" way... Sure, we don't know the motivation of whoever stood behind the camera, but *I* think the subject's self-possession transcends that (and that godawful label it looks like someone slapped on later...)

I'll bet you a quarter, Fascinita, that it rubs you up the wrong way when other people assume / try to tell you what *you* are thinking... and if I'm right in my bet - then in that respect you and I are the same.....

...by the way, if I think a pic is "HOTT!" I'll probably post "ooh! HOTT!" 

Anyhoo... the San people - 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmen 
... hmmm... there's much more to them and their history than this Wiki, but it's a start if anyone's interested ( I know it's kinda off topic but, hey it's all learning... I like the learning... :happy: )

I first heard of them in any detail through the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy" which I saw about 20 years back and which to me, then, seemed like a light-hearted tale lampooning the foolishness of Western materialism...

It's argued by some that - against the background of what the San were going through at the time - the movie was a gross misrepresentation of their lives/lifestyle and that somehow the San were made to look stupid in this movie... While the first critcism would be spot on if the film had presented itself as a serious documentary rather than a silly/fantastical parable I don't think anyone *did* consider it to be a documentary... not to mention - if it's good enough for Jim Carey, why shouldn't N&#451;xau (who played Xi) get to act?

....and as for the second criticism, I felt that Xi (the name of the San hero character in the movie) came off looking smart and resourceful in contrast with the westerners he met - provided you were able to suspend your disbelief and accept the premise of his character's worldview - which was internally consistent given the *supposed* isolation of his people... 
I'll admit that my memory of this movie is worn thin - 20 years is a long while... but hey, maybe worth a look... and you can make up your own mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Must_Be_Crazy

Some of the things I liked about this film were: 
the Southern African landscape - where my mixed-race heritage is rooted but that I've never seen first-hand ... 
the anti-materialism ... 
and the idea of "one man against a crazy world"! 
- I totally identify with that last one!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 11, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> I was unaware women had labias down to their knees. I guess that means the male fertility idols with the 4 foot long penises are realistic as well. Good to know.



That... is actually not funny Jack. If it weren't for your prudish nature and the fact that nobody is reading this thread you would be soundly kicked in the forehed for that remark. I'm jumping in the way here to prevent that from happening. Large labia I've seen, often. Four foot long penis? I'm still looking. 



Jack Skellington said:


> I feel some people seem like they are so intent on projecting their own feelings and emotions onto these sculptures they are maybe over looking the history and cultural context of them.
> 
> I disagree with the the ideas the that since they are figurines of women they must have been sculpted by a man for a man's pleasure. I disagree that a sculpture of a women automatically equals porn because women never had any greater cultural importance or significance.
> 
> ...



Yes. And clearly the greatest contribution all the wise women, healers and priestesses represented to these ladies was to lie naked on their backs and expose foot long p*ssies from which they would spew wisdom and mighty warriors who would then run, bring food and impregnate them once again.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 11, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yes. And clearly the greatest contribution all the wise women, healers and priestesses represented to these ladies was to lie naked on their backs and expose foot long p*ssies from which they would spew wisdom and mighty warriors who would then run, bring food and impregnate them once again.



That's one interpretation. Or perhaps they are in the act of giving birth. Not to mention, not all of the figures are depicted in a position that can be interpreted as sexual or childbirth. Many are just standing in a neutral pose. 

Anyhoo, If you want to think of these figures as purely sexual in nature and realistic, more power to you. But there are other historic and archaeological interpretations and you shouldn't be angered or threatened by it. Either way they are interesting pieces of history.


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 12, 2009)

joswitch said:


> I'll bet you a quarter, Fascinita



A quarter of what? Your country house?

There's always room for misinterpretation, especially when important details are left out of points one tries to make. I bet you an elephant (but I'm not saying what kind), that your being frustrated with my interpretation of what you posted is really just you being frustrated that people don't learn to read minds already. 

Spell it out. Work it. Or don't blame it on others when they don't read you in a way that pleases you. :bow:


----------



## Fascinita (Jun 12, 2009)

Here's a statue from antiquity. By all appearances, men in the ancient world had no arms or heads. And while their testicles were quite healthy, their penises must've been non-existent. :doh:


----------



## mergirl (Jun 12, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Here's a statue from antiquity. By all appearances, men in the ancient world had no arms or heads. And while their testicles were quite healthy, their penises must've been non-existent. :doh:


Wow, almost the perfect man!!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 12, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> That's one interpretation. Or perhaps they are in the act of giving birth. Not to mention, not all of the figures are depicted in a position that can be interpreted as sexual or childbirth. Many are just standing in a neutral pose.
> 
> Anyhoo, If you want to think of these figures as purely sexual in nature and realistic, more power to you. But there are other historic and archaeological interpretations and you shouldn't be angered or threatened by it. Either way they are interesting pieces of history.



It might have much to do with the fact that I have a difficult time believing that at any point in time women on a personal level worshipped the idea of being left naked, fat and pregnant on the ground. Surely this concept has been dressed up in many forms and pushed as a duty on women for centuries but this marginalization has been mostly resented and not celebrated by women. Even Barbie comes with 2 sets of clothes, earrings and her own dreamhouse. Speaking only for myself if I were pregnant in the time before hot baths and prenatal vitamins that image up there would not bring me any comfort or reassurances, especially in winter. In fact if I stumbled upon it I would be mad as hell and throw it right in the trash. I'm willing to bet that at NO time in history was it common for women to enjoy being exploited. I think a fair amount of the time people of today underestimate the level of intelligence or depth humans posessed in prehistoric times.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 12, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> It might have much to do with the fact that I have a difficult time believing that at any point in time women on a personal level worshipped the idea of being left naked, fat and pregnant on the ground.



That is* not *what I said at all. 

Again, *culture and context*. In those times women were the healers and midwives. The idols had a very *specific* purpose and would have been used as amulets that they believed would have aided them in fertility and protect them in pregnancy and childbirth. 

This is just one of those agree to disagree type of things.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 12, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> That is* not *what I said at all.
> 
> Again, *culture and context*. In those times women were the healers and midwives. The idols had a very *specific* purpose and would have been used as amulets that they believed would have aided them in fertility and protect them in pregnancy and childbirth.
> 
> This is just one of those agree to disagree type of things.



No, I get you and agree with you in some respects. Just not in reference to this particular sculpture. But yeah, agree to disagree and all that.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jun 13, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Wow, almost the perfect man!!



I just fell in love with you all over again :smitten:


----------



## MatthewB (Jun 13, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> Exactly toni lynn. To be honest, what strikes me most about this particular sculpture is the mons. I'm not an expert. I only know myself and maybe conversed with a few other women. From that little bit of knowledge I'm lead to believe that most women's mons lips don't hang slack like that naturally. Mostly it is plump and closed. Some women though; their lips go slack and will part exposing the clit after being sexually stimulated vigorously within a short period of time. I look at this sculpture and see a woman that the artist may have had sex with multiple times already but there she is beckoning for her lover to come for another go round. I'm reluctant to speak in absolutes about that part because I just don't know enough about the super sized body on that level to be secure. But that's what I think of when I see this sculpture. It looks to me like the knowledge that this woman was unable to get enough of her lover was incredibly erotic to the artist and this pose totally captures that mood to my eye.


Exactly my point in posting that picture in the first place; prehistoric relationships were just as fulfilling as those today.


----------



## mergirl (Jun 14, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I just fell in love with you all over again :smitten:


Whoot! i shall bring the headless man penis and you bring the mall shakes!! :wubu::wubu:


----------



## joswitch (Jun 23, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> A quarter of what? Your country house?
> 
> There's always room for misinterpretation, especially when important details are left out of points one tries to make. I bet you an elephant (but I'm not saying what kind), that your being frustrated with my interpretation of what you posted is really just you being frustrated that people don't learn to read minds already.



Lol! what *house* would that be?! I wish!  and I meant a quarter as in 25cents! 

and yes, you're right, I do find the human lack of telepathy to be hella frustrating! (typing is so slow and so dull! aaargh!)

very perceptive of you!


----------

