Seems like we might be closer than either of us thought. I’m not saying anything about feelings about sex. All I’m saying is that since the only significant elements of the figurines are exaggerations of obviously reproductive features, it seems clear that they are, as you say, fertility objects. Fertility = reproduction = achieved by sexual intercourse. Ergo, sex at root. I’m not suggesting anybody was holding a Venus and spanking the monkey. All I’m saying is that the figurines strongly imply a culture where sexual iconography was common and publicly displayed, and that in such a culture, what we think of as “porn” is irrelevant.
I wonder if that’s true, Cervaise.
I’ve seen nude art from cultures much more comfortable with the human form than contemporary America, and I’ve also seen flat-out porn. There was no question that Vergil was polishing his gladius to some of the stuff the Romans put out.
There’s a difference between a sex manual, nude or sexually-explicit art and porn. The latter is meant to sexually arouse the audience. Porn can be more open, or mixed in with more open discuss about sex, but it is still porn.
You know, you’re probably right; I’m hitting it a little harder than can be justified by strict scholarship. I still think that a culture that creates and carries around such evident fertility-related objects would have a vastly different relationship to sex than we do, and that that implies that attitudes to sex and its representations are more culturally determined than inherent, but the rest of my assertions can be fairly debated. Still, the core point remains.
“Polishing his gladius.” Heh.