ADreamOfLiberty
ZooVille Philanthropist
I have used the search function on this thread and the whole website, so that's my due diligence and if this is already posted it can be deleted.
So I was watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-TyUIc5Gro, I love channels like this BTW. I can never get enough history/anthropology.
If you don't want to watch it these people called the Moche lived on the west coast of south america (Inca territory) but they were before the Inca. They made ceramics/pottery with explicit sexual content. When he said that it included all sorts of things including animals I immediately looked it up. I have never seen bestiality explicitly depicted in the pre-columbian Americas.
Now I have:
This is a crop from a full picture display which can be found here.
I think he's a dog, I can't find exactly what it is and there aren't any better pictures I can find, someone could go to this display and get more angles. The reason I think he's a dog is the spots. Not many animals have spots in general, a jaguar perhaps but the snout and tail are wrong. Now look at the dogs they had around at the time:
I don't know the gender of the human. Apparently a theme with this erotic pottery is anal rather than vaginal penetration.
In researching I found this quote:
As we well know the penis from this 'dog' isn't right for either a dog or a cat, being a generic cylinder. This could just be lack of detailing or it could indicate this is more theory than practice for the artist. Certainly the other examples had very detailed human anatomy sometimes, and sometimes human anatomy (which must have been well known) was reduced to a boring cylinder.
In the same display we see this:
I think that's a cat, the only indication I have is the ears which are definitely not human.
Here we can see a humanoid god with a jaguar tail. It's a big image.
An example of some good old fashioned mouse on mouse action:
Can we conclude from this that the Moche were practicing bestiality? No deductively, but remember how much evidence they had that Alexander of Macedon was homosexual before they started publishing it all over the web.
What we can say is that the concept was not alien to these people. One could easily make a strong case that only the blind would not notice the fact that sexuality is a common factor with animals, but it helps to have a complete record of it.
This all but disproves the never-advanced-but-now-hopeless hypothesis that some post-ice age pervert invented the idea.
I wouldn't bring these people up as a shining beacon though, like all olmec derived civilizations they seem to consider ritual killing kosher.
So I was watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-TyUIc5Gro, I love channels like this BTW. I can never get enough history/anthropology.
If you don't want to watch it these people called the Moche lived on the west coast of south america (Inca territory) but they were before the Inca. They made ceramics/pottery with explicit sexual content. When he said that it included all sorts of things including animals I immediately looked it up. I have never seen bestiality explicitly depicted in the pre-columbian Americas.
Now I have:
This is a crop from a full picture display which can be found here.
I think he's a dog, I can't find exactly what it is and there aren't any better pictures I can find, someone could go to this display and get more angles. The reason I think he's a dog is the spots. Not many animals have spots in general, a jaguar perhaps but the snout and tail are wrong. Now look at the dogs they had around at the time:
I don't know the gender of the human. Apparently a theme with this erotic pottery is anal rather than vaginal penetration.
In researching I found this quote:
I couldn't find the bat depiction with a human female described. The article could mean this image but probably another with an obvious jaguar is meant.Ancient-Origins.net said:
As we well know the penis from this 'dog' isn't right for either a dog or a cat, being a generic cylinder. This could just be lack of detailing or it could indicate this is more theory than practice for the artist. Certainly the other examples had very detailed human anatomy sometimes, and sometimes human anatomy (which must have been well known) was reduced to a boring cylinder.
In the same display we see this:
I think that's a cat, the only indication I have is the ears which are definitely not human.
Here we can see a humanoid god with a jaguar tail. It's a big image.
An example of some good old fashioned mouse on mouse action:
Can we conclude from this that the Moche were practicing bestiality? No deductively, but remember how much evidence they had that Alexander of Macedon was homosexual before they started publishing it all over the web.
What we can say is that the concept was not alien to these people. One could easily make a strong case that only the blind would not notice the fact that sexuality is a common factor with animals, but it helps to have a complete record of it.
This all but disproves the never-advanced-but-now-hopeless hypothesis that some post-ice age pervert invented the idea.
I wouldn't bring these people up as a shining beacon though, like all olmec derived civilizations they seem to consider ritual killing kosher.
), considering I don't have a big libido and I'm not much into humans, so maybe they'll need that to be sexually satisfied.
