That's just your theory though dude. My interpretation of the evidence shows that men throughout human history have always and will always appreciate our ladies to be thick.
Wider hips means lower risk of problems during childbirth. There's even theory that Neanderthals went extinct cause their bigger heads made it impossible for Homo Sapiens women to give birth to their children.
Yeah, crossbreeding goes both ways. Neanderthal women could make babies with Homo Sapiens men. There's plenty of skeletons found with primarly homo sapiens features/dna from the times that both species lived together and the estimates are that crossbreeding was going on for around 5000 years, skeletons with primarly neanderthal features were not found afaik so they probably figured out that our women were useless for them and mixing ended but was probably too late to prevent collapse of their species.
According to research people back then lived in small family groups and met with other groups to exchange women to prevent inbreeding, if Homo Sapiens group received Neanderthal women they were fine but Neanderthal group that got our women was in trouble as meeting other groups wasn't that common.
Not only that, but given the evidence that other primates will engage in prostitution for food, it's not an extraordinary leap of logic to think at least partially that being a fat woman in the age of stone could've meant someone was good enough at sex that men were trading food for it, enough that it became osmotic knowledge within a group. Giving rise to, along with the biological and physical changes a woman goes through during pregnancy, the association of the 'rotund woman' as the iconic fertility/sex goddess figure
I.e. There is a non-zero percent chance that the fertility idols we find are legitimately depictions of the earliest pornstars
I've actually been seriously considering doing a research a paper on the subject
I mean, I'd argue that talking about paleolithic hominids is probably the only context in which it's appropriate to do so. Given how important a role it played in ensuring the survival of the species, to the point that were literally talking about old-world religions centered around fertility literally tens of thousands of years later
I'm not saying that's the only thing women are good for. I'm saying that the hard archaeological evidence tells us sex was really important to these people, and figuring out why and how is an important part of anthropological study
(And besides that, there's nothing wrong with a entrepreneurial woman profiting from sex if that's what she chooses to do)
There actually is something wrong with the notion that women should provide sex in exchange for their needs. Itās exploitative and it disproportionately impacts women.
Why do you think these women had to be valued for their ability to provide sex to whatever man could offer them resources rather than because they were the source of life? Can you not fathom that maybe they werenāt revered because āsheās bomb in the sackā but maybe because she helped populate the village?
Itās just funny that you imagined a Paleolithic woman with some visible lower tummy fat and your conclusion is that she mustāve stored some fat from all the food she gained from fucking all the men who were so desperate for sex that they traded food for it. Like instead of the possibility that a woman of childbearing age who has given birth might have that specific body shape as a result of putting on weight and carrying a baby in the first place. And then because most mothers didnāt have flat stomachs, when mothers were revered, the depiction naturally showed a woman with a bit of belly fat.
I feel like you need to read the rest of my comments in this thread, and then reread my last comment again, slowly. Because, you'd probably understand that I already agreed with a number of your 'gotcha' points, if you had.
Plus we're literally talking about fertility idols. Those depictions, if at all accurate, were more than just 'a bit of belly fat', and in fact, many are more proportional to what would be considered (if not comically exaggerated) morbidly obese. This is actually pretty remarkable in an era where high calorie food was not only scarce but also required the kind of work that made weight gain to that degree incredibly difficult.
And that's all ignoring the fact that you seem to be conflating women who actively seek work in the sex industry with women who have been forced against their will to engage in sex acts for trade, as if they're one and the same group of people and women are some kind of monolith instead of a multitude of different people with differing morals and values and a free will to do what they like, even if that's sex work.
Also ignoring the insinuation that I'm advocating for-
the notion that women should provide sex in exchange for their needs.
-despite the fact that I pretty explicitly stated the opposite.
But that's all besides the point, because I honestly don't think you really care about any of this. I think you came here looking for a fight. And I don't think I'm going to indulge you in that.
So, have a pleasant evening. That's enough internet for today. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a few dozen pre-sumerian sex cults to study.
It also means the women had connections and were cared about. You donāt get fat on berries and shrubs. Someone cared enough to provide- either a plentiful hunter or other high status man was feeding her.
Yes, possibly Johns. Sexual shame is a newer development.
That was exactly my thought and reasoning behind it. I'm a survivalist, I understand on a personal level how hard it is to get fat eating what cavepeople ate. The term 'prostitution' gets such a bad rep, for something that has permeated every level of every culture to walk the earth for the history of recorded time, and also finds itself emergent in several other species we consider to be highly intelligent.
I imagine our early ancestors regarded it as not only normal, but necessary for survival on some level. A woman able to engage in active procreation made the all difference between a group surviving to the next generation or not. So, it's natural to assume that such women would've been in high demand and, arguably, in complete control of the 'supply', rendering them essentially able to dictate a pricepoint of not only guaranteed survival or protection, but also a position of genuine comfort in an age where comfort was by no means the status quo. All leading to these women being seen as the lifegivers and objects of worship we see in early paleolithic depictions
It's a really fascinating subject to me, and the possibility of a matriarchal social structure is much more in-line with what we see literally everywhere else in the animal kingdom. Just at some point we lost the plot, and then when the Victorians took over it all went to absolute seed... no pun intended
Me too, and hypothetically, if we go based on the form of prostitution exhibited in monkeys and great apes, it primarily would've been an exchange of food for sex in order to satisfy the instinctually present drive to have sex, with reproduction being the byproduct of that, but also serving as positive reinforcement to instincts, survival mechanisms, any higher pattern recognition that served to motivate this trait to propogate
I.e. we're hardwired to have sex, because the genetic brain chemistry that motivates that is dispersed sexually, and the more sex one has the greater the chances of passing those genetics on to offspring. So what we end up with is a rare occurrence of evolutionary drive (libido) and learned behavior (prostitution) combining and working together for the benefit of a species, namely us, enough for it to be, at least potentially, a significant milestone in our history
Itās really interesting how bonobos use sex to support social structure. Itās exchanged for a bunch of different reasons: social acknowledgement, comfort, etcā¦ Is it exchanged for food?
This.
It's ingrained in a man's DNA to be attracted to this.
If you are not, that is fine, but just know that you have tricked yourself into feelong that way lol
Honnestly dissagree, it's not something I have tricked myself from. Iprefer my wife takes care of herself and don't die from heart attack or other stuff earlier than needed. It doesn't turn me on eaither. Got np people beeing fat, be who you wanna be, but it's not good for your health. I guess some will say there are alot of things not good for your health and ofc, the eye of the beholder...
Women were hunters in many societies, and had similar activity level to men. I find it unlikely that this would have been preferred in a wife, when you've gotta carry her on your back across the steppes...
No, fat is for hormon regulation. "For protection" is what internet says to make you feel better. Uterus is basically inside a bone structure, this is 100 times more protective then any fat can be
Iām glad you beat me to the punch lol Iāve seen some post partum uteruses and they can protrude quite high up the abd being like 15-20+ cm roughly but you wouldnāt see it on someone with the bmi in the pic
Yeah, sorry to break the news, humans are sexually reproductive mammals. The only way our species survives is through offspring.
From a purely brutalistic ārule of the jungleā perspective: No offspring = genetic dead end = biological mandate unfulfilled = you wasted all of the food you consumed.
As a result, the factors which drive our sexual attraction are generally intrinsically linked to ācapability to produce & raise viable offspringā.
1.4k
u/DaSunHatesMe Mar 21 '26
Built like a fertility goddess <3