@kate “No war…” Ha?! Women really think that if human society was a Matriarchy there would be less conflict? No, I heartily disagree. It would be just as bad, and just as good. Men would have been discriminated against the same way women were, only as slave-warriors instead of womens’ historical role as slave-wives.

Until it can be examined openly then there is nothing that can be said about it and all speculation concerning it is simply a matter of lies and un-substantiated rumor. To assert something as fact without substantiating it is a matter of fraud. No one out there propagating this matter has bothered to try to verify its existence, whether or not tests were done, who did the tests, and where.

There is no proof that the Kalpa Vigraha is older than the 20th century. Could it be ancient? Certainly, it is possible.

But possibility is not fact, and it is dangerous to assert things that are merely possible as being fact, when they are not.

Next Angie claims that “People had a far more positive attitude toward women and goddesses back then.” this conflates two separate issues together in confusion, positive attitudes toward women, and positive attitudes toward goddesses. They are not the same thing. And neither has been proven for “back then.”

We honestly have almost no knowledge of the belief structures of archaic humanity, and we honestly have almost no knowledge of their social practices and structure, especially in matters of gender and sexuality – though we have clues, some clues and hints are tantalizing, but an intellectually honest person admits this and refrains from trying to project her or his hopes dreams and expectations on people living 40,000 years ago.

We can try to project our current knowledge of primal peoples still living, and their culture, onto people of the extreme past. But this is a limited attempt. Westerners typically are wont to project their own egalitarian “noble savage” mindset onto these peoples and ignore their nuanced cultures, however, and this does not bode well for understanding people from 20,000 years ago.

Actually the single species of ‘us’ resulted from our nature of rapid reproduction (as compared to the Neanders, Archaic, etc) and our intolerance. I see no altruism in history.

As an interesting aside, consider why cave art was practiced deep inside caves requiring much planning for lighting, pigments, etc which has led to almost any theory being considered. Here I offer mine: the practice of representational ‘seeing’ painting was a forbidden practice and why? Because it was deviant. It was not normal. What was normal was ‘seeing’ as an out of body experience. Thirty years ago history/natural art books included strange depictions of what seemed to be the scene as seen from above. One assumes since the Neanders possessed this quality, the ability in the CroMagnons was seen as evidence that some crossover occurred, perhaps in cannibalism. In as much as this out of body art was made long after civilization started, one can consider that the out of body ‘seeing’ became a ‘talent’ defining a shaman or wizard, etc., slowly disappearing from the remaining homo species, us. The new normal, representational painting from a standing on the ground point no longer had to be hidden, it was as everyone saw.

In concert with the Rubenesque idealization was the desire to be pale. Only poor people were thin and tan, since they worked outside and never got enough to eat. Now we all want to be skinny and leathery. Go figure.

But, your other assertion, that we should compare this to ‘classical’ art is flawed. There was plenty of borderline- and total pornography in ‘classical’ art. In the Roman section of the Boston MFA there are tiny, exquisitely carved figurines of dwarfs with gigantic penises and quite a few Ukiyoe prints feature men with large penises and women with over-sized vaginas. How would you classify them?

To recognize that something has the potential to titillate is not the sign of a dirty mind, especially in an anthropological setting.