This is why I joined DU- substantive discussions.
The point of the OP seems to be that no one really knows for sure what function these figurines and carvings played, but the media has attached itself to the "pin-up" narrative because it titillates- more importantly; because the media's hyperbolic assumptions assigned to the recognized scientific experts on the subject lend strength to the notion that modern female objectification porn, and it's functions, are a human universal.
Modern cyber porn is a very different animal than anything we've seen before- the relationship between the human mind and media has changed in a very basic way that could undermine the future of our understanding and intellect.
Modern cyber porn is a further distilled product of the larger porn industry. We understand the function of these sorts of media and we all share some agreements about what the reasons are for it's consumption and production.
The "meaning" of basic human expressions displayed in neolithic carvings should never be extrapolated from known, extant information about representational media in the present- it is intellectually dishonest and logically unfair.
Not all recognized porn is like this, and some things in our culture function like porn, but they don't look like it.
Thank you for a stimulating article- I'm begining to see the real problem represented by cyber porn and what it says about ideation creation and manipulation. Feed-back, satisfaction periods and internalization are occupying a very different spot than they did historically.
I would love to have a further civil discussion about what these new models of media consumption, growth and creation can teach us about the role of pornography and it's function in modern western culture- specifically what it means about the ability of very bad people to create thier own adherents (or loyal lap-dogs) through the application of strictly consumptionist standards and ego-rewarding, emotionally charged standards.
= new reply since forum marked as read