A news story claims that there is scientific evidence that prehistoric men had sex for fun. I have two problem with this ‘news’. Firstly, it’s hardly unimaginable that early versions of ourselves would indulge in lust. Actually I find it a lot harder imagining advanced creatures not having sex for pleasure. The other problem is the ’science’ in this. How can a new interpretation of a 30,000 years old statue be scientific ‘evidence’? Get real, please. As with sex, science can also be done just for fun.

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.

He argues that monogamy only became established as hunter-gatherer societies took up agriculture and settled in houses, allowing the social roles of men and women to become more fixed.

Source: FOXNews.com - Study: Prehistoric Man Had Sex for Fun - Science News | Current Articles