Archaeologica.org

Alright, here is an interesting but misinformed article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... noses.html

On the contrary, as Ish can tell you:

BIG NOSE

BIG FEET

BIG .......!!!

Obviously, Neanderthals had big wangs in order to keep their women in the cave at night as opposed to hooking up with Cro Magnon men. Based on the discovery of recent hybrids, this morphological adaptation was not always successful.

I thought Patty dealt with this question with her Uncle Bernie observation?

Yes, or "When Uncle Bernie met Great Aunt Nellie". What a fantastic movie that was, especially Great Aunt Nellie's restaurant scene!

But Cogs, thrilling though your image is, it occurs to me that attraction between Neanderthals may be nothing to do with the size of Mr N's wanger keeping Mrs N in the cave on those long, dark, northern nights.

Nowadays, attraction doesn't work that way. So what reason do we have to think it did then?

These days, you have no idea about the size of the object in question until the moment of truth, when it's far too late ... So the attraction or magnetism between people today is based on other factors, most completely nebulous and beyond our comprehension and the scope of our scientists' microscopes. Falliing for someone is like getting a bad dose of 'flu. It seems to just descend from nowhere, stay as long as it wants to and then leave again - all for no particular reason.

People don't even have to be face to face, these days, to fall in love. They meet and get attracted to each other on internet dating agencies.

Some decide to get married on the internet before they've even met ... they could be on opposite sides of the world, but they become magnetised to one another, despite having no information on the size of the male's you know what. I'm pretty sure that they don't have to record this data in their profiles - you know, hair colour, eye colour, height, profession, favourite movie, size of wanger ... ?

And at one point would it be acceptable to ask?

"Yes, darling, I've booked the church, the invitations have all gone out and the bridesmaids' dresses have been ordered ... but could you just tell me how big your wanger is?"



So why do people become attracted? What is falling in love, and why does it happen? The reductionist evolutionists would say that the sole driver is the urge to reproduce, to continue the human race - that survival is the key motivator. But I think they're just a bunch of Unromantics. If that is the case, then why do women have orgasms? There is no earthly, useful, functional reason for a woman to have an orgasm - but that won't stop us having them.

And please don't tell me it's the 'pleasure principle' at work - Nature's way of making us comply with the biological imperative. We would done it for half a bar of chocolate. Instead, we are rocketed up the stairway to heaven.

Come on Ish!
You are putting your cultures modern mores and dress code on a pretty old social scene.
Who knows what was visible, or considered desirable, at that time.
(Other than red body paint.)

kbs2244 wrote:Come on Ish!
You are putting your cultures modern mores and dress code on a pretty old social scene.
Who knows what was visible, or considered desirable, at that time.
(Other than red body paint.)

So you think they were naked, until God came along and made them feel guilty so they covered themselves with fig leaves?

No, not at all.
But I do not think that a well placed “peek-a-boo” or “tights” is a new thing.

I don't know, kb. The idea of standing six yards from a glacier and freezing my balls off just doesn't seem sexy.

Minimalist wrote:I don't know, kb. The idea of standing six yards from a glacier and freezing my balls off just doesn't seem sexy.

Minimalist -

For some reason this reminds me of the old phrase,

When you are out on a pretty cloudy day, and see a little patch of sky, you say

"Enough blue to make a Dutchman's Breeches".

Within my lifespan that phrase got turned around into

"Enough blue to make Mick Jagger's Codpiece".

See how Kulchah progresses!

hoka hey

john

kbs2244 wrote:No, not at all.
But I do not think that a well placed “peek-a-boo” or “tights” is a new thing.

I'm sure those in the north at least would have been well wrapped up against the cold, in animal skins. If anything, with our central heating, we probably reveal more flesh than they were ever able to.

Ah,
But any stripper will tell you that something is a better attention getter than nothing.

Agreed - and the woman who wears nothing beneath her animal skin, or fur coat, is guaranteed to get the sap rising.