One of my favorite instagramers: karachichaiwalla
Whoever he is, he takes beautiful photos of everyday life in Karachi. The chai photos make me nostalgic and take me back to a place I left long ago.. I can smell the chai and hear the pour through his photos. You should follow him.
Female figurine from the Hohle Fels cave near Stuttgart, about 35,000 years old. Interpreted as a pornographic pin-up.
“The Earliest Pornography” says Science Now, describing the 35,000 year old ivory figurine that’s been dug up in a cave near Stuttgart. The tiny statuette is of a female with exaggerated breasts and vulva. According to Paul Mellars, one of the archaeologist twits who commented on the find for Nature, this makes the figurine “pornographic.” Nature is even titling its article, “Prehistoric Pin Up.” It’s the Venus of Willendorf double standard all over again. Ancient figures of naked pregnant women are interpreted by smirking male archaeologists as pornography, while equally sexualized images of men are assumed to depict gods or shamans. Or even hunters or warriors. Funny, huh?
Consider: phallic images from the Paleolithic are at least 28,000 years old. Neolithic cultures all over the world seemed to have a thing for sculptures with enormous erect phalluses. Ancient civilizations were awash in images of male genitalia, from the Indian lingam to the Egyptian benben to the Greek herm. The Romans even painted phalluses on their doors and wore phallic charms around their necks.
But nobody ever interprets this ancient phallic imagery as pornography. Instead, it’s understood to indicate reverence for male sexual potency. No one, for example, has ever suggested that the Lascaux cave dude was a pin-up; he’s assumed to be a shaman. The ithyphallic figurines from the Neolithic — and there are many — are interpreted as gods. And everyone knows that the phalluses of ancient India and Egypt and Greece and Rome represented awesome divine powers of fertility and protection. Yet an ancient figurine of a nude woman — a life-giving woman, with her vulva ready to bring forth a new human being, and her milk-filled breasts ready to nourish that being — is interpreted as pornography. Just something for a man to whack off to. It’s not as if there’s no other context in which to interpret the figure. After all, the European Paleolithic is chock full of pregnant-looking female statuettes that are quite similar to this one. By the time we get to the Neolithic, the naked pregnant female is enthroned with lions at her feet, and it’s clear that people are worshipping some kind of female god.
Yet in the Science Now article, the archaeologist who found the figurine is talking about pornographic pin-ups: “I showed it to a male colleague, and his response was, ‘Nothing’s changed in 40,000 years.’” That sentence needs to be bronzed and hung up on a plaque somewhere, because you couldn’t ask for a better demonstration of the classic fallacy of reading the present into the past. The archaeologist assumes the artist who created the figurine was male; why? He assumes the motive was lust; why? Because that’s all he knows. To his mind, the image of a naked woman with big breasts and exposed vulva can only mean one thing: porn! Porn made by men, for men! And so he assumes, without questioning his assumptions, that the image must have meant the same thing 35,000 years ago. No other mental categories for “naked woman” are available to him. His mind is a closed box. This has been the central flaw of anthropology for as long there’s been anthropology. And even before: the English invaders of North America thought the Iroquois chiefs had concubines who accompanied them everywhere, because they had no other mental categories to account for well-dressed, important-looking women sitting in a council house. It’s the same fallacy that bedevils archaeologists who dig up male skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that the society was male dominant (because powerful people wear jewelry!), and at another site dig up female skeletons with fancy beads and conclude that this society, too, was male dominant (because women have to dress up as sex objects and trophy wives!). Male dominance is all they can imagine. And so no matter what they dig up, they interpret it to fit their mental model. It’s the fallacy that also drives evolutionary psychology, the central premise of which is that human beings in the African Pleistocene had exactly the same values, beliefs, prejudices, power struggles, goals, and needs as the middle-class white professors and students in a graduate psychology lab in modern-day Santa Barbara, California. And that these same factors are universal and unchanged and true for all time.
That’s not science; it’s circular, self-serving propaganda. This little figurine from Hohle Fels, for example, is going to be used as “proof” that pornography is ancient and natural. I guarantee it. Having been interpreted by pornsick male archaeologists as pornography because that’s all they know, the statuette will now be trotted out by every ev psycho and male supremacist on the planet as “proof” that pornography is eternal, that male dominance is how it’s supposed to be, and that feminists are crazy so shut the fuck up. Look for it in Steven Pinker’s next book. ***
P.S. My own completely speculative guess on the figurine is that it might be connected to childbirth rituals. Notice the engraved marks and slashes; that’s a motif that continues for thousands of years on these little female figurines. No one knows what they mean, but they meant something. They’re not just random cut marks. Someone put a great deal of work into this sculpture. Given that childbirth was incredibly risky for Paleolithic women, they must have prayed their hearts out for help and protection in that time. I can imagine an elder female shaman or artist carving this potent little figure, and propping it up somewhere as a focus for those prayers.
On the other hand, it is possible that it has nothing to do with childbearing or sexual behavior at all. The breasts and vulva may simply indicate who the figure is: the female god. Think of how Christ is always depicted with a beard, which is a male sexual characteristic, even though Christ isn’t about male sexuality. The beard is just a marker. Or, given the figurine’s exaggerated breasts, it may have something to do with sustenance: milk, food, nourishment.
The notion that some dude carved this thing to whack off to — when he was surrounded by women who probably weren’t wearing much in the way of clothes anyway — is laughable.
Current schedule these days: sleep at 1ish, wake up at 6. Work.
I’m not sure if this arrangement is any better than just sleeping at 4 and waking up at 9…
My mom told me today that girls can’t do trading. I told her to go away.
And no, I don’t want to do trading. But the fucking principle of things is important.
Artist and photographer Lee Jeong Lok born in 1971 in Gwanju, South Korea. He discovered his passion for photography as a design student at Gwangju University and subsequently studied photographic design and fine art photography in Seoul and New York. For more than a decade the artist has exhibited in solo and selected group exhibitions throughout Korea and his work can be found in the public collections of some of the most respected museums across the country.
Lee Jeonglok describes his current calling as “listening to nature to discover a unique, personal impression of a place…translating what it says into a visual language through my photography”.
artist find at nevver
You can look at those two gits and know there’s a wand joke in there, along the lines of “Mine’s bigger than yours.”
I spent the summer working for two professors that I now have for class and during the summer, it was all “call us Rob and Max, we’re colleagues now so you guys have to call us by our first names just like we do with you”. But now that they’re my professors in class, and they refer to each other during lecture as “so as Professor Goldman said yesterday…”, I’ve been trying to get used to calling them more formally. However, all that has resulted in is me calling them by their full names. “Yeah so remember in class how Rob… Miller! said that….”
It looks like we’ll provide lunch for folks who come to the noon-Fridays meetings. But I need a headcount and any dietary restrictions (or strong preferences). Please reply to me off-list ASAP if you’re coming to the noon session. Thanks!
BUT I CANT MAKE THE NOON MEETINGS! I have class from 10am to 2pm with no breaks and then the meeting at 2pm QQ What is food….
Things I’m looking forward to:
Things I am not looking forward to:
Also, I just said I to my other UROP supervisor but I don’t think he recognized me. But that’s okay, since he’s only met me once so far :x Tomorrow will be the group’s first meeting…
I also got a venti mocha with “extra mocha” (I asked if it was possible to get extra chocolate and the barista excitedly was like “yeah! extra mocha!”) and I got it for free because I had a free drink/food thingy and I just realized it’d expire in 2 weeks so why not?
Okay. I’ll admit it. I’m a basic bitch.
So what if I like the feel of hot, pumpkin spice coffee wrapped around my hands. Yeah, you like my nail polish? It’s Essie in “Take it Outside.” That’s taupe with pink undertones, motherfucker. I got bottles of em in 30 shades of gray, cranberry, wine, merlot, a different kind of cranberry. They are all puns. What of it? Don’t you like the beautiful nuances of the English language? The word trickery that this celestial landscape can paint?
Hold on, I’m going to Instagram my coffee. So what? I have great boots on. You can see the coffee cup and the boots at the same time. I think it’s an aesthetically pleasing picture and I want the people in my life to see it. Why do you fucking care? Why do you care that I like my coffee like I like Idris Elba: covered in artificial pumpkin and in my mouth?