a.k.a. “Sex in History Lite, Part I”
This is part of a HAWT (!!!) series of posts based on excerpts from Sex in History, by Reay Tannahill. (Thumbnail review: Read the second half of her book. Worth it.)
Does Kinky Rough Hair Equal Smooth Sailing?
In discussing the move to frontal sex that bipedalism opened up for us human-types, Tannahill has this to say:
“By the time the frontal position was generally adopted, early humans had probably shed most of the body fur of their ancestors, but they found it necessary to grow some again so as to reduce friction during intercourse.”
Hmm… Some of us sensitive Princess-and-the-Pea types find that certain men’s particularly rough hair down there hurts.
In those cases, I’d far prefer a bare bear who uses Nair. In no way can I imagine that evolution would have chosen any fur other than bunny or chinchilla to reduce the friction of (front-facing) intercourse.
Are Male Hairy Apes Less or More Sexist Than Male Humans?
“…it is said that frontal sex made the human female susceptible to something that is physiologically impossible for other primates—rape. In the living world, only one species of spider appears to share with humanity the ability to conclude a mating against the will of the female.”
This made no sense to me when I read it. How can a female animal, in estrus or not, physically close off the vaginal opening and prevent unwanted penetration?
Impossible for human females to prevent rape—we who are usually literally the weaker sex—and what about animals where the male presents with a penile bone?
I found Tannahill’s “animal rape doesn’t happen” claim very difficult to believe, and indeed, her claim was mistaken.
Rape does happen among non-human animals, and not infrequently among our fairly close primate cousins.
The book Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans gathers together research papers examining sexual coercion by males against females—both by hairy apes and by our naked human variety.
The big question is, do patterns of behavior in rape and sexual aggression by human apes mirror patterns by non-human apes? So far, the book concludes, it appears the jury is still out on this.
Ooh, Baby, Twirl Those Belly Tassels!
Oh, dear—it was disappointing to read Tannahill trotting out a pulled-it-out-of-her-*ss theory right at the start of her book:
That this very *ss was the hottest-ticket part of a cave-woman’s bod back when doggie-style sex was in vogue before humans walked upright.
Cave-guys supposedly didn’t give a fig-leaf for anything on the front half of women (‘cause, what, they couldn’t reach around?).
(Yeah, yeah, I know: Real cave-ladies’ probably didn’t have anything like that to grab up front—like today’s monkeys—but I bet their supposedly-hot backsides were pretty much “eh”, too.)
Tannahill then spews a corresponding dribble that I seem to recall reading from other (male) anthropologists:
That our supposedly tushie-lovin’ foredaddies later switched to the hots for bellies and boobs after humans switched to a bipedal strut and front-facing sex.
Now, why is it I’m thinking that most anthropologists:
(1) Are men of the white persuasion; and,
(2) Think missionary style is pretty much all there is?
Regarding Tannahill’s claim that the frontal sex switch caused a switch to a “liking for resilient breasts and stomachs” (Tannahill’s support: See those zaftig prehistoric “Venus” figures? They have big bellies and boobs, so guys musta liked dem tings!)
If true, then when men starting wanting women with big, honking boobs, why didn’t they also want us with big, honking bellies to match?
Imagine a 300-pound Angelina Jolie with belly folds hanging down past her knees…How hot do most of today’s guys think THAT is?
This post was based entirely on information found on page 17 of my edition.
Next Post in This Series: It’s GATHERER-Hunters!